SHAH NIKHIL DHIRAJLAL HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2429/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 April 2026AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the assessee's prayer for an opportunity to furnish all necessary details. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay in filing, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for condonation. The assessee also raised grounds concerning reopening of assessment and additions made on commodity trading transactions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and whether the reopening of assessment and additions made were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3),Section 147,Section 68,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE- & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Kaushal Fofaria, AR
For Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR
Hearing: 23.03.2026

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:

- The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (herein after referred to as “the CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order dated 16.10.2025 relevant to Assessment Year 2012-

13.2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, despite sufficient cause being explained under section 249(3) of the Act.

2.

The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that there is no delay in filing appeal in view of directions of Hon'ble Apex Court Shah Nikhil Dhirajlal HUF Vs. ITO - 2– in "Cognizance for Extension of Limitation" SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020granting extension of limitation on account of Covid-19 pandemic.

3.

The learned AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of reopening is without juri iction and in not permissible either in law or on facts.

4.

The learned AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in making addition of purchase as well as sale transactions aggregating to Rs. 81,72,000/- carried on NSEL u/s. 68 of the Act only on the basis of surmises and conjectures without any corroborative evidence.

5.

The learned AO has failed to appreciate that Section 68 of the Act has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. As the transaction relates to commodity trading whereby only profit amount is exchanged, there is no credit of sum of Rs. 81,72,000/- in the books of accounts of the appellant.

6.

The learned AO has failed to appreciate that the profit of Rs. 72,000/- arising from such purchase and sale has already been offered for tax.

7.

The learned AO and CIT(A) have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. The action of the learned AO and CIT(A) is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed.

8.

The learned AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C of the Act.

9.

The learned AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in initiating penalty proceedings under Section271(1)(c) of the Act.

10.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. - 3–

3.

Heard the argument of both the parties and perused the material available on record.

4.

On perusal of the record, we note that notices of hearing were issued to the assessee on several occasions to furnish the requisite documents and supporting evidence. There was also a delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). Since the assessee did not furnish sufficient and satisfactory cause for condonation of such delay, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not admitted. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall submit all relevant bank statements/documents/evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) and shall comply with the notices issued by the Revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 23.04.2026. (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE-PRESIDENT () () Ahmedabad; Dated 23.04.2026 - 4–

आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

2.

""थ" / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →