DIPAL NAYANKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

At the outset, we observe that the appeal is time barred by 17 days. The delay of 17 days is condoned on due consideration of facts of assessee’s case and owing to causing no perceptible prejudice to other side.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee failed to furnish any substantial explanation or supporting documentary evidence in respect of cash deposits and share transactions. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had neither filed the return of income nor provided satisfactory details to explain the nature and source of the transactions. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer treated cash deposits of ₹1,41,08,160/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, sale of equity shares amounting to ₹12,25,716/- as taxable long-term capital gain, and purchase of shares amounting to ₹11,59,272/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. The total income was thus assessed at ₹1,64,93,148/- and penalty proceedings were initiated.

The CIT(Appeals) by relying upon judicial precedents including B. N. Bhattacharjee v. CIT (10 CTR 354), Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT (223 ITR 480), and CIT v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. (38 ITD 320), the CIT(A) held that mere filing of appeal is not sufficient and the assessee must effectively pursue the same. The CIT(A) further relied on the principle that law assists the vigilant and not those who are indolent. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and treated as infructuous without adjudicating the issues on merits.

The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, including the written submissions filed by the learned counsel for the assessee. The core grievance of the assessee is that both the assessment proceedings as well as the appellate proceedings were

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, including the written submissions placed before us by the learned counsel for the assessee. The primary contention raised is that the assessee was deprived of a proper opportunity of being heard on account of notices having been issued on an incorrect email address both during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings.

On perusal of the record, we find that the notices issued by the Assessing Officer under sections 148, 142(1) and the show cause notices were consistently sent to the email id parekhnihir@yahoo.com, whereas the email address available on the income-tax portal at the relevant time was yashpal18586@gmail.com. Further, during the appellate proceedings, the notices issued by the CIT(Appeals) under section 250 of the Act were also sent to the same incorrect email id, i.e., parekhnihir@yahoo.com, despite the assessee having specifically mentioned the correct email id bharatshagar13@gmail.com in Form No. 35 for service of notices. Thus, it is evident that the statutory notices were not served on the correct email address of the assessee at any stage of the proceedings.

In our considered view, such improper service of notices goes to the root of the matter and the assessee was effectively prevented from participating in the proceedings and placing necessary evidences on record. It is a settled position of law that no adverse order can be sustained where reasonable opportunity of being heard has not been granted. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tin Box Company v. CIT (249 ITR 216), wherein it has been held that where adequate opportunity has not been provided, the matter deserves to be restored for

Considering the entirety of facts and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer is directed to issue all future notices on the correct email address as per the records and as furnished by the assessee, and to afford adequate and effective opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall also cooperate and furnish all necessary details and evidences in support of his case.

Accordingly, in the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 23/04/2026