ATULKUMAR ARVINDBHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

ITA 1080/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 September 2026AY 2010-116 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT, while acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance during assessment proceedings, decided to condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals on grounds of delay without adjudicating the issues on merits. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the quantum assessment order for AY 2012-13 and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant documents and explanations. For the penalty appeal related to AY 2012-13, since the quantum appeal was set aside, the penalty appeal was also set aside to the AO. Regarding the penalty appeal for AY 2010-11, the Tribunal noted that the corresponding quantum appeal was pending before the CIT(A) and therefore, treated the penalty appeal as premature, allowing the assessee to approach the Tribunal for revival after the disposal of the quantum appeal. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Atulkumar Arvindbhai Patel, filed three appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) for Assessment Years (AY) 2010-11 and 2012-13. The appeals challenged penalties for concealment of income and the dismissal of appeals by the CIT(A). For AY 2012-13, the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under Section 148 due to unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 59,37,000/- in an HDFC bank account. The assessee did not file a return of income or respond to notices. The AO added the cash credits as unexplained money under Section 69A and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271F. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeals in limine due to delay and non-compliance, without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,05,870/- levied for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2010-11? 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty of Rs. 47,09,870/- levied for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2012-13? 3. Whether the assessment framed without proper service of notice under Section 148 renders the entire proceedings unlawful and the assessment order void for AY 2012-13? 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal against the facts of the case due to delay, when there was no delay in filing the appeal? Assessee's contentions: The assessee claimed to be an agriculturist who also undertook a travel and air ticket booking business. The email ID and mobile numbers on the tax portal did not belong to him, leading to unawareness of notices and subsequent ex-parte orders. The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, and the assessee sought an opportunity to present the case. The assessee also argued that the assessment was framed without proper service of notice under Section 148 and that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal despite no delay. Revenue's contentions: The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69A,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

For Appellant: Shri Balkishna T Thakker, CA
For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27.07.2026Pronounced: 28.09.2026

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

-

These three captioned appeals have been filed by the same assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide orders dated 22.01.2026 relevant to Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,05,870/- levied as concealment of income. The same being unjust and unlawful be deleted now.

2.

The demand of Rs. 1,05,870/- be stayed till

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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →