VIPULBHAI KEHARBHAI KUKADIYA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1(9) BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

ITA 2465/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 October 2026AY 2020-218 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vipulbhai Keharbhai Kukadiya, filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information regarding cash deposits of ₹1,12,32,361/- in the assessee's bank account. The AO completed the assessment ex-parte under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B, treating the amount as unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE. The total income was assessed at ₹1,16,07,620/-. Penalty proceedings were also initiated under Section 271AAC(1). The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) on 28.12.2025, which was delayed by approximately 319 days. The CIT(A) rejected the condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal in limine.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the condonation of delay primarily because the assessee's explanation was general and lacked documentary evidence for the entire delay period. However, the assessee claimed to be a BC/Banking Mitra, handling banking transactions for customers, with only nominal commission income, and attributed the delay to limited knowledge and financial constraints. The Tribunal also acknowledged the substantial grievance against the addition of ₹1,12,32,361/- under Section 69A and the application of Section 115BBE, which had not been examined on merits due to the dismissal in limine. Considering the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the authorities below and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish relevant bank statements, BC/Banking Mitra appointment documents, transaction details, and commission statements. The AO was directed to examine the nature and source of deposits, verify if transactions were on behalf of the bank/customers, and determine taxable income after providing an opportunity of being heard. The penalty appeal was allowed as the quantum addition, which formed the basis of the penalty, was set aside.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay of 319 days without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances explaining the delay, and whether sufficient cause was demonstrated for condonation. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay despite the assessee demonstrating a reasonable cause, and whether substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating the grounds on merits, thereby denying the assessee an effective appellate remedy. 4. Whether the AO erred in making an addition of ₹1,12,32,361/- under Section 69A as unexplained money without appreciating the facts and evidence, and whether the essential conditions for invoking Section 69A were established. 5. Whether the AO erred in applying Section 115BBE to the addition made under Section 69A, and whether the facts justified its invocation. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was due to limited knowledge of income tax procedures, limited education, financial constraints, and absence of timely professional guidance. The cash deposits and withdrawals were handled on behalf of the bank and its customers as a Business Correspondent (BC)/Banking Mitra, and only commission income was his own. The addition under Section 69A was made on assumptions without direct evidence. The application of Section 115BBE was also challenged. Revenue's Contentions: The Ld. Sr. DR relied on the observations made by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 271AAC(1),Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 272A(1)(d)

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 Brijesh Parikh, AR
For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.08.2026Pronounced: 16.10.2026

PER GANGADHAR PANDA - ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

Both appeals filed by the same assessees are directed against the separate orders dated 14.05.2026 and 19.05.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short “NFAC”], Delhi for the Assessment Year 2020-21 arising out of the assessment order dated 13.01.2025 completed under section 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and penalty order dated 10.07.2025 completed under section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Since both the appeals are involved id

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 →