VASUDE vs. INH VELUBHA GOHIL,BHAVNAGARVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(9), BHAVNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 725/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 April 2026AY 2022-235 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the matter required reconsideration in the interest of substantial justice, as the appeal was dismissed on technical grounds without examining the merits. The principles of natural justice necessitate an opportunity to be heard, especially with substantial additions made.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 137-day delay, without adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) found the reasons for delay insufficient and attributed it to the assessee's negligence. The assessee had also requested a hearing via video conferencing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on delay without considering the merits and whether the assessee was denied natural justice by not being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 80C,Section 44AD,Section 249(2),Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, AR
For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.725/Ahd/2026 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vasudevsinh Velubha Gohil, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Village Ramanka Taluka Umrala, Ward-1(9), Dist: Bhavnagar, Gujarat-364001 Bhavnagar [PAN No.AJTPG3993J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sunil Talati, AR Respondent by: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.04.2026 22.04.2026 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 19.02.2026 passed for A.Y. 2022-23.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the Appellant’s appeal against the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and thereby confirming the addition of Rs. 1,81,84,379/-, eventhough the affidavit for condonation of delay duly filed along with the written submission in response to hearing notices have been issued from time to time. The affidavit duly explaining the delay, and therefore, the impugned order passed ignoring the same is arbitrary and liable to be quashed. 2) That the Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without affording the Appellant an opportunity of being heard through Video Conferencing, despite specific and repeated requests made by the Appellant while uploading written submissions, thereby rendering the impugned order in violation of the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed. 3) That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating the appeal on merits inspite of detailed written submissions along with its relevant

ITA No. 725/Ahd/2026 Vasudevsinh Velubha Gohil vs. ITO Asst.Year –2022-23 - 2– annexures were submitted. In view of the same, the Ld. CIT(A) should decide the matters on merits rather than on technical grounds.  Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeals, your appellant is taking following grounds of appeal on merit. 4) That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal and in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O. u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as unexplained investment, merely on the alleged ground of non-response to the show cause notice. It is submitted that, the said addition being arbitrary, unsustainable in law and liable to be deleted. 5) That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal and in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs. 1,50,000/- claimed u/s 80C of the Act, merely on the alleged ground that no documentary evidence was furnished during the assessment proceedings. It is submitted that, the said disallowance being unjustified, unsustainable in law and liable to be deleted. 6) That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts dismissing the appeal and in confirming the addition of Rs. 34,379/- (i.e. difference of Rs. 5,30,000/- less Rs. 4,95,621) made by the Ld. A.O. by applying profit rate at the rate of 8% on gross receipts of Rs. 66,25,000/- instead of accepting the income duly declared by the Appellant at the rate of 6% u/s 44AD of the Act, despite the fact that all receipts were credited through banking channels, Therefore, the said addition being contrary to the provisions of section 44AD of the Act, unjustified and liable to be deleted. 7) Your appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any of the grounds before the final hearing of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who was subjected to assessment under section 144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for the assessment year 2022–23 by the National Faceless Assessment Unit. The assessment was completed ex parte on account of non-compliance by the assessee to statutory notices issued during the course of assessment proceedings. In the absence of sufficient response and supporting evidences, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make additions on best judgment basis. The Assessing Officer treated an amount of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act, disallowed deduction claimed under section 80C of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- for want of supporting evidence, and further made an addition

ITA No. 725/Ahd/2026 Vasudevsinh Velubha Gohil vs. ITO Asst.Year –2022-23 - 3– of Rs. 34,379/- by applying a profit rate of 8% on gross receipts as against 6% declared by the assessee under section 44AD of the Act. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 1,86,99,179/-.

4.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, it was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that the appeal was filed with a delay of 137 days beyond the prescribed time limit under section 249(2) of the Act. The assessee had sought condonation of delay by furnishing reasons in the form of written submissions and affidavit. The CIT(Appeals), after examining the reasons advanced, held that the explanation furnished by the assessee was vague and did not constitute “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) further observed that the delay was inordinate and attributable to negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee, and that the assessee failed to demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the appeal within the prescribed time.

5.

The CIT(Appeals) also discussed in detail the legal position relating to condonation of delay, relying upon various judicial precedents held that while a liberal approach may be adopted in cases of marginal delay, inordinate delay cannot be condoned in the absence of cogent and convincing reasons. The CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus of establishing sufficient cause for delay and accordingly declined to condone the delay. As a consequence, the appeal was held to be not admissible and was dismissed in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. Thus, the additions made by the Assessing Officer stood confirmed.

ITA No. 725/Ahd/2026 Vasudevsinh Velubha Gohil vs. ITO Asst.Year –2022-23 - 4– 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 submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating the issues on merits. At the same time, it is evident from the record that the assessee had filed written submissions and affidavit explaining the delay and had also raised specific grievances regarding lack of proper opportunity, including request for hearing through video conferencing.

8.

Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration in the interest of substantial justice. The assessment in the present case has been framed under section 144 of the Act and the additions have been made in the absence of complete details. The assessee has now placed on record various submissions challenging the additions on merits regarding alleged unexplained investment, claim of deduction under section 80C of the Act, and applicability of section 44AD of the Act. These aspects have not been examined either by the Assessing Officer in a comprehensive manner or by the learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the appeal on technical grounds.

9.

In our considered view, the cause of substantial justice would be better served if the assessee is afforded one more opportunity to present his case. The principles of natural justice require that a litigant should not be denied an opportunity of being heard, particularly when substantial additions have been made.

ITA No. 725/Ahd/2026 Vasudevsinh Velubha Gohil vs. ITO Asst.Year –2022-23 - 5–

10.

Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall examine the issues afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering the submissions and evidences that may be furnished by the assessee.

11.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 22/04/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 22/04/2026 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY 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,

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

1.

Date of dictation 20.04.2026 (Dictated over dragon software) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 20.04.2026 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .04.2026 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 22.04.2026 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 22.04.2026 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 22.04.2026 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order……………………………………

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →