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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 595/RPR/2026Status: HeardITAT Panaji21 October 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal, finding no material 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 grant relief on the delay. 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 specific legal ground raised by the assessee concerning the retrospective application of 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 facts?

The assessee, Vishal Kumar Patel (HUF), filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Raipur Bench, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 59 days. The assessee submitted an affidavit and condonation application explaining the delay. The Revenue did not provide any material to suggest malafide or deliberate conduct by the assessee for the delay. The ITAT considered various judicial pronouncements and condoned the delay. The assessee's primary ground of appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) concerned the levy of tax under Section 115BBE(1) at 60% on alleged unexplained money under Section 69A, arguing that the transaction predated the amendment to Section 115BBE which increased the rate from 30% to 60%. The FAA had dealt with the merits but failed to adjudicate this specific legal ground.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal should be condoned? (Question of procedure) 2. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in levying tax under Section 115BBE(1) at 60% on alleged unexplained money under Section 69A, considering the transaction occurred prior to the amendment of Section 115BBE, which was substantive in nature and should apply prospectively? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: - The delay in filing the appeal was not due to malafide or deliberate conduct and should be condoned, relying on judicial pronouncements such as 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 incorrect as the alleged transaction occurred prior to the amendment of Section 115BBE, which was a substantive amendment 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 substantive issue.

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

आदेश / ORDER 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 condonation, the assessee had filed an “affidavit”, dated 16.09.2026 as well as condonation application.

3.

I have carefully considered the contents of the condonation application a/w. affidavit and it is observed that there is no material/evidence on record filed by the Revenue to suggest malafide or deliberate conduct of the assessee for causing such delay. Further, contents of the condonation application and affidavit also do not spell out any deliberate conduct of the assessee for causing the said delay. Respectfully considering the various judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC); (ii) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (iii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania

3 Vishal Kumar Patel (HUF) Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.595/RPR/2026

Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, the delay of 59 days involved in the appeal is condoned.

4.

At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in Form 35, as per grounds of appeal before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee has assailed in Ground No.7 as follows: “7. Without prejudice to ground nos.1 to 6 above, Assessing Officer erred in levying tax u/s.115BBE(1) @ 60% on alleged unexplained money u/s.69A since assessee had made alleged transaction even prior to amendment proposed in the “The Taxation Law (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016”, put up before house on 26.11.2016 to tax deemed income u/s.115BBE @60% then existing rate of 30%, which received ascent of Hon’ble President of India on 15.12.2016, and said amendment was substantive in nature, therefore, it will apply prospectively to the transactions executed on and after 15.12.2016 and not retrospectively to the transactions made during the period from 01.04.2016 to 14.12.2016 in the F.Y.2016-17.”

I find that the Ld.ADDL/JCIT(A)/NFAC had dealt with the merits of the matter and failed to adjudicate the legal ground raised by the assessee and in view thereof, the order of the Ld.ADDL/JCIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and the matter is restored to its file for specific adjudication on this legal ground which goes to the root of the matter and as a quasi-judicial authority, it is incumbent upon the said authority to first adjudicate this

4 Vishal Kumar Patel (HUF) Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.595/RPR/2026

legal ground. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the file of the Ld.ADDL/JCIT(A)/NFAC and the said authority shall pass an order as per law complying with the principles of natural justice.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 21st day of October, 2026.

Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 21st October, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, SAMIRA Digitally signed by SAMIRAN BERA N BERA Date: 2026.10.21 // True Copy // 16:30:09 +05'30' Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur

More judgments on Section 115BBE

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →