KHAMBHADA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO.WD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1309/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 October 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 288 days in filing the appeal, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/- in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 60 days. The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the AO, considering the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders due to the assessee's lack of effective representation. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the AO for passing a fresh assessment order after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant materials and comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Khambhada Seva Sahkari Mandli Limited, filed an appeal against the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal challenged an ex-parte order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B on 24.03.2023, confirming an addition of Rs. 1,62,71,875/- towards cash deposits in Ahmedabad District Co-operative Bank as unexplained money. The assessee had failed to respond to multiple notices issued by the AO during the assessment proceedings and by the CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings. The appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of 288 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal is barred by limitation, and if so, whether the delay should be condoned. The assessee sought condonation of delay, while the revenue did not explicitly argue on this point but supported the lower authorities' orders. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,62,71,875/- as unexplained money, considering the ex-parte nature of the assessment and appellate orders and alleged failure to appreciate sufficient cause for non-compliance. The assessee argued that the orders were passed against the principles of natural justice due to non-response to notices, and that there was a sufficient cause for failure to respond. The revenue supported the orders passed by the AO and CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 142(1),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD

Before: NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA & SHRI SANJAY KUMAR

Pronounced: 27.10.2026

PER SANJAY KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

- This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2018-19. ITA 1309/AHD/2026 - 2–

2.

The Assessee has raised following grounds of Appeal:- “1.1 The order passed by U/s.250 passed on 24.04.2025 for A.Y. 2018-19 by NFAC.CIT(A), Delhi (for short CIT(A)"] upholding the ex-parte order passed u/s 147 rws 144 rws 144B on 24.03.2023 by FAO and thereby confirming the addition of Rs. 1,62,71,875/- towards cash deposits in Ahmedabad Dist. Co. Op. Bank as unexplained money is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice.

1.

2 The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law or on facts in disposing the appeal ex- parte or alleged failure to respond to the notice of hearing. Both the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that there was a sufficient cause for failure to respond to the notics of hearing issued by each of them. Thus, the impugned order of CIT(A) has been passed grossly against the principles of natural justice.

2.

1 The Id. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the addition of 1,62,71,875/- towards cash deposits in Ahmedabad Dist. Co. Op. Bank as unexplained money.

2.

2 That in the facts and circumstances of the Id. CIT(A), ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs. 1,62,71,875/- towards cash deposits in Ahmedabad Dist. Co. Op. Bank as unexplained money.

It is, therefore, prayed that the ex-parte order passed u/s 147 rws 144 rws 144B on 24.03.2023 by FAO and confirming the addition of Rs. 1,62,71,875/- upheld by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted.”

3.

The appeal is barred by limitation by 288 days, for which the appellant has preferred a condonation of delay application.

3.

1

Brief facts of the case are that the Assessee has made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.1.62 crore. Acting upon the information uploaded on the insight portal, the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act after receiving approval from the competent authority, the assessee failed to comply to the notice dated 31.02.2022 issued by the AO. Further, - 3– notices u/s.142(1) of the Act were issued upon the assessee on 17.10.2022, 13.12.2022, show-cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act dated 06.01.2023, Non-compliance notice dated 20.01.2023, notice from NeFAC dated 25.01.2023, show-cause notice in form of Draft Assessment Order dated 13.03.2023. However, the assessee failed to comply to all the notices issued from time to time. Further, an opportunity was given to the assessee by issue of show-cause notice dated 13.03.2023. However, the assessee again failed to comply to the same. In view of this fact it was seen that the assessee had failed to file the return of income and had made cash deposits amounting to Rs.1,62,71,875/- for which no explanation was offered, the AO concluded the assessment thereby adding the said cash deposits of Rs.1,62,71,875/- to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration on account of unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act.

3.

2 Before ld. CIT(A), the Assessee did not respond even after 13 notices, which were issued to the Assessee which is evident from Para-4 of the impugned order. In absence of any representation or submissions of evidences by Assessee to support its ground, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO in the assessment order.

3.

3 Hence, the Assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

Before us, at the outset, ld. AR has requested to remand the matter back to AO for passing fresh assessment order as the Assessee was not represented before the AO.

- 4–

5.

Per contra, Sr.DR has supported the order passed by the AO and ld. CIT(A).

We have gone through the records of the present case, and the 6. affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the reasons for delay.

7.

It is evident that the Assessment Order dated 24.03.2026 is passed ex parte as the assessee remained unrepresented before the AO. Considering the fact that there was no effective representation by the Assessee either before the Ld. AO or before the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered view that the interests of justice will be well served, if the Assessee be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. AO. So far as the negligence on the part of the assessee in not properly representing his case before the lower authorities is concerned, the Assessee can be burdened with reasonable costs of Rs.10000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The Assessee will deposit the aforesaid cost amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and will produce the proof of such deposit before the Ld. AO. Subject to the fulfilment of the aforesaid condition, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned, the impugned order of the CIT(A) are set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO. The AO will pass afresh assessment order after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The Assessee shall submit all relevant materials and supporting documents before the AO in support of its case and shall comply with - 5– the notices issued by the Revenue Authorities without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The order pronounced on 27.10.2026. (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 27.10.2026 DS, PS - 6–

आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant

2.

""थ"/ The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु"/ Concerned CIT आयकरआयु"(अपील) /The CIT(A)- 4. 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad गाड"फाईल /Guard file.

6.

JEETENDRA आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, DEVENDRABHAI UPADHYAY DN: c=IN, o=PERSONAL, title=6087, DEVENDRA 2.5.4.20=7e5568a89b633f174b28a80 f5e63c638da40b7313fb47ebaefda84 1cf59d1703, postalCode=380059, BHAI st=Gujarat, serialNumber=816dc56e896211a1a2 1ccc4abc94ddc94458f4a1b37be8e1 UPADHYAY 854e9399295106d4, cn=JEETENDRADEVENDRABHAI UPADHYAY Date: 2026.10.27 17:33:29 +05'30' सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →