JIGARKUMAR CHAMPAKLAL INAMDAR,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA

ITA 2589/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 September 2026AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jigarkumar Champaklal Inamdar, filed an appeal before the ITAT against an order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2012-13. The original assessment involved reopening proceedings under Section 147 based on information about cash deposits of Rs. 24,20,000/- in the assessee's savings bank account. The Assessing Officer added this amount to the total income as unexplained cash credit after the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay in filing, without adjudicating on the merits. The assessee contended that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period and that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing it without proper verification or opportunity.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings as it went to the root of the matter and involved a legal issue. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The assessee provided screenshots from old and new income-tax portals indicating the assessment order was not reflected as passed in time. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the veracity of the claim regarding the passing of the order. If the Revenue could not prove that the order was passed in time, the matter would stand resolved. The parties were granted liberty to approach the Tribunal in case of contrary findings. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was within the prescribed time limit as per Section 249(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, considering the date of service of the order versus the date of passing the order. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the erroneous assumption that no application for condonation of delay was filed, without verification and without providing an opportunity to the assessee. 3. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Assessee's Contentions: - The appeal was filed within the prescribed 30-day period from the date of service of the order, not from the date of passing. - The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on a mistaken belief that no condonation application was filed, without proper verification or giving an opportunity. - The assessment order is bad in law and should be quashed. - Relied on screenshots of income-tax portals showing the assessment order was not reflected as passed in time. Revenue's Contentions: - Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(2)(b),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

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

For Appellant: Shri Amar Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Drop Singh Meena, Sr.DR
Hearing: 08.07.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

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

-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal ADDL/JCIT (A)-7 Delhi , relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble CIT (A) had erred in not admitting the appeal of the appellant for the year under consideration.

2.

On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble CIT (A) had erred in passing an order without considering th

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 249(2)(b)

All 25 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →