JAPAN RAJNIKANT GANDHI,AHMEDABAD vs. WARD 1, INTERNATION TAXATION, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2530/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 September 2026AY 2016-179 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) were filed with a significant delay of 709 and 537 days. The Ld. CIT(A) had rejected these appeals solely on the ground of delay, without adjudicating the merits of the case. The Tribunal observed that the assessment order itself was passed ex-parte under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act. The assessee's grounds of appeal raised substantial issues regarding the denial of natural justice, the validity of reopening under Section 147, and the merits of the addition under Section 69. Given that the Ld. CIT(A) had not applied his mind to these grounds, the Tribunal found it appropriate to set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the appeals back to his file. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeals afresh on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, including the consideration of the delay and the grounds raised.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Japan Rajnikant Gandhi, an NRI settled in the USA since 2007, did not file a return of income for Assessment Year 2016-17 under the belief of having no taxable income in India. During FY 2015-16, the assessee, along with his late father and brother, purchased a flat for approximately Rs. 1,00,05,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under Section 147, leading to an ex-parte assessment order under Section 144. The assessee's appeals before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - Ahmedabad-13 (Ld. CIT(A)) were delayed by 709 and 537 days. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeals without deciding them on merits, citing the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal without affording a reasonable and meaningful opportunity of being heard, thereby sustaining an addition of Rs. 1,00,05,118/- as unexplained investment under Section 69? (Assessee's contention: The order is illegal and void ab initio. Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal despite the appellant establishing a sufficient and bona fide cause? (Assessee's contention: Delay was bona fide. Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not granting sufficient opportunity to explain the cause of delay and the facts on merits, and whether the appellant should be granted an opportunity to present additional evidence in the interest of natural justice? (Assessee's contention: Natural justice requires an opportunity. Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of proceedings under Section 147? (Assessee's contention: Reopening cannot be for a 'fishing and roving inquiry' and AO acted mechanically on 'insight portal' information, violating natural justice. Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,00,05,118/- as unexplained investment under Section 69, when the appellant had duly explained the source of investment from co-owners and bank loan? (Assessee's contention: Source was explained from co-owners (father and brother) and bank loan, verifiable from bank statements and sale deed. Revenue's contention: Not recorded.)

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI SANJAY KUMAR

PER SANJAY KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

- The above appeals are directed against separate orders both dated 22.06.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad-13 (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 2016-17. ITA No. 2529/A

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 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →