JAYANTILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURIS- TO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 262/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 April 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, directing a fresh examination of the assessee's claim regarding the source of cash deposits. The Tribunal found that the issue required adequate examination at both assessment and appellate stages.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 149-day delay, with the CIT(A) not being satisfied with the explanation provided by the Non-Resident Indian assessee. The CIT(A) also found the explanation for cash deposits to be unsatisfactory on merits.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash deposits and cash credit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 68,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 271AAC(1),Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.03.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.262/Ahd/2026 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jayantilal Patel, Vs. NFAC, Delhi Uma Petroleum To Daslana, (Present Jurisdiction ITO, Becharaji Viramgam Road, Ward-3(1)(1), Viramgam, Ahmedabad-382715 Ahmedabad) [PAN No.ACYPP9384N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Biren Shah, AR Respondent by: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.03.2026 23.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 28.11.2025 passed for A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. CIT(A) has erred in non-condoning delay and there by erred in dismissing' the appeal of the assessee without considering the merits of the case. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the assessment order passed u/s. 147 rws 144B of the Act is void and deserves to be quashed. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 1,29,79,709/- as Unexplained money u/s 69A, when no such addition is required to be made in the case of the appellant. The same is required to be deleted. 4. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 12,33,650/- as Unexplained

ITA No. 262/Ahd/2026 Jayantilal Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2– cash credit u/s 68, when no such addition is required to be made in the case of the appellant. The same is required to be deleted. 5. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the lear'ned Assessing Officer has grossly erred in mechanically directing to charge interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, when no such interest is chargeable in the case of the appellant. 6. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, the learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred in ordering for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC(1), When the said provisions are not applicable in the case of the appellant. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, withdraw and/or alter any of the ground or grounds of appeal either before or at the time or hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who was subjected to assessment proceedings wherein the Assessing Officer examined certain cash deposits made in the bank account of the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 1.29 crores in cash, which according to the Assessing Officer remained unexplained. The assessee was asked to furnish the source of such cash deposits; however, according to the Assessing Officer, the explanation furnished by the assessee was not satisfactory. Consequently, the Assessing Officer treated the said cash deposits as unexplained income and made addition to the total income of the assessee. The assessment was accordingly completed by making the aforesaid addition.

4.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). However, there was a delay of 149 days in filing the appeal. The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) that the delay had occurred due to the fact that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) residing outside India and therefore there was a reasonable cause which prevented timely filing of the appeal. The Ld. CIT(Appeals),

ITA No. 262/Ahd/2026 Jayantilal Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– however, was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee and held that the assessee had failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay was not condoned and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine.

5.

On merits also, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that even otherwise the assessee had not been able to satisfactorily explain the source of the cash deposits of Rs. 1.29 crores. The CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer had rightly treated the same as unexplained income. Thus, each of the grounds raised by the assessee challenging the addition as well as seeking condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

6.

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

7.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We note that the Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that, as mentioned at the relevant page and paragraph of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), the delay of 149 days in filing the appeal was on account of the fact that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian residing outside India and therefore there existed a reasonable cause for the delay. It was further submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of running a petrol pump and had a substantial turnover of Rs. 30.40 crores during the year under consideration, and therefore the cash deposits of Rs. 1.29 crores were out of business receipts and the assessee is in a position to explain the source of such deposits.

8.

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the explanation furnished by the assessee for delay

ITA No. 262/Ahd/2026 Jayantilal Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 4– deserves to be considered in the interest of justice. Further, we find that the issue on merits requires proper examination in light of the nature of business of the assessee and the claim that the cash deposits were out of business turnover. In our considered opinion, the matter has not been adequately examined either at the assessment stage or by the Ld. CIT(Appeals).

9.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the claim of the assessee afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering all relevant evidences that the assessee may place on record in support of the source of cash deposits. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate in the set-aside proceedings and furnish necessary details as may be called for by the Assessing Officer.

10.

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

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 23/04/2026 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →