JAYENDRA CHINUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1718/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 October 2026AY 2020-20215 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal without condoning the delay of 243 days and without adjudicating the grounds on merits. Citing the Gujarat High Court's decision in Vareli Textile Industries v. CIT, the Tribunal held that a meritorious case should not be dismissed on the grounds of limitation. Considering the assessee's submission regarding a potential double addition in respect of credit card payments through IndusInd Bank Limited, the Tribunal found that the grounds taken by the assessee required adjudication on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay in filing the appeal and thereafter adjudicate the grounds on merits. The assessee was directed to make compliance and provide supporting evidence. The CIT(A) was empowered to call for a remand report from the AO on fresh evidence before deciding the grounds on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jayendra Chinubhai Patel, failed to file his return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under Section 147 based on information regarding credit card payments totaling Rs. 1,74,68,093/-. The assessee did not comply with the notices issued. Consequently, the AO treated the entire credit card expenditure as unexplained and made an addition of Rs. 1,74,68,093/- under Section 69C. The assessment was completed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 on February 14, 2025. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 243 days without adjudication on merits. The assessee is now in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 243 days and adjudicating the grounds on merits, contrary to the reasons provided by the assessee supported by an affidavit. 2. Whether the reassessment proceedings are bad in law due to the alleged incorrect application of provisions of Section 148A(a), 148A(b), and 148A(d), specifically regarding the non-furnishing of credit card details obtained under Section 133(6) and discrepancies in the amount of credit card transactions reported in Form 26AS versus the amount considered by the AO. 3. Whether the reassessment proceedings are bad in law due to the non-furnishing of approval under Section 151 granted by the PCIT, Ahmedabad-3, and whether the AO erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the return of income and using erroneous credit card amounts. 4. Whether the AO erred in not furnishing the evidence gathered for credit card payments, which resulted in the addition of Rs. 1,74,68,093/-, to the assessee. Assessee's Contentions: The CIT(A) failed to condone the delay and dismisses the appeal without considering the merits. The delay was due to a change of address and family disputes, leading to non-receipt of notices. The actual credit card expenditure through IndusInd Bank was Rs. 65,91,510/-, as per statements, but the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,31,83,020/-, resulting in a double addition. The matter should be set aside to the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide on merits. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue had no objection if the matter was set aside to the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69C,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 133(6),Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA & SHRI SANJAY KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, AR
For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, SR-DR
Hearing: 02.09.2026Pronounced: 06.10.2026

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 20.04.2026 for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2020-21 in the proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred as “the Act”].

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2020-21. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information that the assessee had made total payment of Rs.1,74,68,093/- in respect of expenditure incurred through credit cards. Jayendra Chinubhai Patel Vs ITO, AY- 2020-21 2 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 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →