VISHAL KUMAR PATEL(HUF), RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 595/RPR/2026Status: HeardITAT Raipur21 October 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vishal Kumar Patel (HUF), filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Raipur Bench, against an order of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-2/NFAC, Bengaluru, for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was filed 59 days beyond the prescribed time limit. The assessee submitted an affidavit and condonation application explaining the delay. The Tribunal considered the condonation application and, finding no malafide or deliberate conduct on the part of the assessee, condoned the delay. The assessee's primary contention before the ITAT related to the levy of tax under Section 115BBE(1) at 60% on alleged unexplained money under Section 69A, arguing that the transaction occurred prior to the amendment of Section 115BBE which increased the rate from 30% to 60%.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal, finding no material or evidence on record to suggest malafide or deliberate conduct by the assessee. The Tribunal relied on several judicial pronouncements, including Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, to justify the condonation. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal observed that the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)/NFAC had dealt with the merits of the matter but failed to adjudicate the legal ground raised by the assessee concerning the applicability of the amended Section 115BBE. The Tribunal held that it is incumbent upon the quasi-judicial authority to first adjudicate such a legal ground that goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, the order of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)/NFAC was set aside, and the matter was restored to its file for specific adjudication on this legal ground, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal should be condoned? (Question of procedure turning on facts). 2. Whether the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)/NFAC erred in levying tax under Section 115BBE(1) at 60% on alleged unexplained money under Section 69A, when the alleged transaction occurred prior to the amendment of Section 115BBE, which substantively increased the tax rate from 30% to 60% and should apply prospectively? (Question of law and mixed law and fact turning on Section 115BBE and Section 69A). Assessee's Contentions: - The delay in filing the appeal should be condoned as there was no malafide or deliberate intent. The assessee relied on judicial pronouncements including Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), and Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh. - The levy of tax under Section 115BBE(1) at 60% was erroneous because the alleged transaction occurred prior to the amendment of Section 115BBE, which was substantive in nature and should apply prospectively from 15.12.2016, not retrospectively to transactions between 01.04.2016 and 14.12.2016. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions from the Revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BBE,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 21.10.2026Pronounced: 21.10.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.ADDL/JCIT(A)-2/NFAC, Bengaluru, dated 16.03.2026 for the assessment year 2017-18 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

At the very outset, it is noted that the appeal is time barred by 59 days. Explaining the reasons for such delay and praying for condo

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 115BBE

All 8,662 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BBE →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →