PUNDRIK RAVINDRABHAI TRIVEDI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

ITA 38/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 September 2026AY 2017-1823 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Firstly, regarding the condonation of delay, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided reasonable cause for the delayed filing of appeals. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag&Anr. v. Mst. Katiji&Ors., the Tribunal adopted a liberal approach to advance substantial justice and condoned the delays. However, to account for the negligence in representing the case before lower authorities, the assessee was burdened with costs of Rs. 10,000/- per appeal, to be deposited in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. Secondly, concerning the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2017-18, the Tribunal noted that the penalty was levied based on an addition of Rs. 31,00,716/-. It was also observed that the quantum proceedings for this addition had been restored by the Tribunal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal held that the issue of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars could not be effectively adjudicated without the final outcome of the quantum proceedings. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate them afresh after considering the final outcome of the quantum proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pundrik Ravindrabhai Trivedi, filed appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The appeals faced significant delays, attributed by the assessee to an inaccessible email account, arrest by State Tax Enforcement Authorities from January 2020 for approximately 15 months, and subsequent issues with his Authorized Representative (AR). The assessee regained access to his email and records in July 2024, leading to the filing of appeals against ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) on June 18, 2024, and April 19, 2024. The ITAT considered the condonation of delay based on the assessee's explanation and the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag&Anr. v. Mst. Katiji&Ors. [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC). The Tribunal condoned the delays but imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/- per appeal on the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2017-18 should be condoned, considering the circumstances explained by the assessee, including arrest and inaccessibility of email, as per Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The delay was due to genuine and bonafide reasons beyond his control, including arrest, custody, and inaccessibility of his registered email and ITBA account. He relied on the liberal approach for condonation of delay as per the Supreme Court in Mst. Katiji's case. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18 is sustainable when the underlying addition on which the penalty is based is itself subject to fresh adjudication by the Tribunal. Assessee's contention: The quantum proceedings for the addition of Rs. 31,00,716/- were restored by the Tribunal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty proceedings should also await the final outcome of the quantum proceedings. The penalty was levied mechanically without proper application of mind. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253,Section 144,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c),Section 271AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI GANGADHAR PANDA

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AR
For Respondent: Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.08.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER GANGADHAR PANDA - ACCOUNTANTMEMBER:

This is a batch of five appeals preferred by the same Assessee. Since the appeals involved identical/connected issues, the same were heard together and are, therefore, being disposed of by way of common order.

Condonation of Delay

2.

At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 128 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 36/Ahd/2025 and 37/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 and 190 days delay in filing the appeal in ITA Nos. 36 to 39/Ahd/2025 & 155/Ahd/2025 Asst. Years –2011-12, 2012-13, 2016-17

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →