ATUL DURLABHJIBHAI DATTANI,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

ITA 773/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 October 2026AY 2003-045 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the assessee's submissions and the facts. It was of the considered view that the matter deserved to be decided on merits in the interest of substantial justice. Accordingly, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Since the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits, the Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was also directed to furnish all relevant documents and evidence, including bank statements and confirmations, to explain the nature and source of the deposits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Atul Durlabhjibhai Dattani, proprietor of M/s. A.S. Enterprise, had a bank account where substantial cash and cheque deposits were made during Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05. As no return was filed, the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 147 and issued a notice under Section 148. The assessee failed to file a return or provide explanations for the deposits. Consequently, the AO added Rs. 2,22,07,161/- to the assessee's total income as income from undisclosed sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] but faced a delay in filing. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to insufficient reason for condoning the delay. The assessee then filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for AYs 2003-04 to 2005-06, challenging the CIT(A)'s orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and fact by not admitting the assessee's appeal and rejecting it on the grounds of insufficient or no good reason for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and fact by upholding the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,22,07,161/- (for AY 2004-05) being cash deposited treated as cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that he is an uneducated person with inadequate knowledge of tax laws and online proceedings. He was unaware of the CIT(A)'s orders and only learned about the demand upon receiving a call from the department. The delay in filing was due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances, not intentional. The assessee requested condonation of delay and an opportunity for a hearing on merits. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the Revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT “DB” BENCH, RAJKOT

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI SONJOY SARMA

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri R. V. Arun Prasad, CIT-DR and Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. DR
Hearing: 28.07.2026Pronounced: 12.10.2026

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

- Delay Condoned The captioned four 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 separated orders of even dated 19.08.2025 for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2005-06. Since the issued raised in these appeals are common and identical, we proceed to adjudicate ITA No.771/Ahd/2025 for AY 2004-2005 for the purpose of adjudication. The decision rendered in the said appeal will apply

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 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →