RONAKKUMAR DIPAKBHAI SHAH,ARVALLI vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MODASA

ITA 2631/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 September 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without examining the issues on merits. Considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with the law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant documentary evidence and explanations and not seek unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The specific findings on the merits of grounds 2 to 6 were not made as the matter was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ronakkumar Dipakbhai Shah, filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A) dated 31.10.2025 for Assessment Year 2020-21. The assessee's original return was not filed, and the case was selected under RMS due to high-value cash transactions. The assessment was reopened, and a notice under Section 148 was issued. The assessee filed a return declaring a total income of Rs.94,940/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated cash deposits of Rs.20,64,202/- as unexplained income under Section 69A and taxed it under Section 115BBE. Presumptive income under Section 44AD was recomputed, and deductions under Section 24(b) and Chapter VI-A were disallowed. The total income was assessed at Rs.26,18,289/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-response to notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of non-response to notices, without considering the merits, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as argued by the assessee who cited lack of information and reliance on an authorized representative for the delay. 2. Whether the AO erred in treating cash deposits of Rs.20,64,202/- as unexplained income under Section 69A and taxing it under Section 115BBE, when the assessee contended these were cash sales from agricultural products, supported by documentation, and duly reconciled with cash flows, as argued by the assessee. 3. Whether the AO erred in recomputing presumptive income under Section 44AD at 12.5% on a turnover of Rs.28,67,408/-, adding Rs.1,23,217/-, when the assessee had opted for presumptive taxation with a declared book profit and argued that Section 44AD(4) was wrongly invoked as the return was filed post-notice under Section 148, as argued by the assessee. 4. Whether the AO erred in disallowing deduction under Section 24(b) of Rs.1,70,617/- for house property loss, despite evidence of rental income and interest payments, as argued by the assessee. 5. Whether the AO erred in disallowing Chapter VI-A deduction of Rs.1,65,313/- without providing an opportunity to substantiate proofs, as argued by the assessee. 6. Whether the AO/CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee's reply dated 05.09.2024, which explained the source of cash deposits as agricultural trading sales, as argued by the assessee. The revenue did not record any arguments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 44AD,Section 44AD(4),Section 148,Section 139(1),Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 24(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Mehta, AR
For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singhj, Sr.DR
Hearing: 15.09.2026Pronounced: 28.09.2026

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

-

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFA) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2020-

21.

ITA No. 2631/AHD/2025, AY-2020-21 Ronakkumar D Shah - 2–

2.

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of Appeal:-

1.

The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of non-response to notices dated 29/08/2025, 16/09/2025, and 14/10/2025, without considering the merits, despite the appeal being filed on 31/07/2025 with condonation of

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →