RAKESHKUMAR RAJPUT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1635/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 October 2026AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the NFAC erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal solely on the grounds of limitation without addressing the merits. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC to be bonafide and reasonable. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another v. Mst. Katiji & Others, the ITAT condoned the delay of 230 days in filing the appeal before the NFAC. Consequently, the ITAT restored the appeal to the file of the NFAC with a direction to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee was allowed. Grounds No. 2 and 3 were dismissed as having been rendered infructuous because the issues were remanded back to the NFAC for adjudication on merits. All rights and contentions of the assessee were left open. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rakeshkumar Rajput, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal against an assessment order dated 02/05/2023, passed by the Income Tax Officer under Section 147 r.w.s 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-2015. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was delayed by 4 days, which was condoned. The primary issue before the ITAT was the NFAC's dismissal of the assessee's appeal due to a delay of 230 days in filing it before the NFAC, without adjudicating on the merits of the case. The assessee claimed to be unaware of the reassessment proceedings and the ex-parte assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on facts and in law, the learned NFAC erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before it, and consequently dismissing the appeal as not admitted. (Question of law and fact, concerning the condonation of delay under general principles of justice and fairness). 2. Whether on facts and in law, the learned NFAC ought to have held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act is time-barred, rendering the entire assessment order invalid and void ab-initio. (Question of law, concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147). 3. Whether on facts and in law, the learned NFAC ought to have deleted the addition made under Section 69A of the Act amounting to Rs. 54,28,790/- in respect of credits in the appellant's bank account. (Question of fact and law, concerning the addition of unexplained cash credits under Section 69A). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC was due to being unaware of the reassessment proceedings and the ex-parte assessment order, as they were an individual engaged in small-scale home appliance repair and had no taxable income in prior years. The assessee also contended that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the prescribed limitation period after the expiry of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another v. Mst. Katiji & Others [1987 (2) SCR 387] for condonation of delay. 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 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the Order, dated 27/02/2026, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissedthe appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 02/05/2023, passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144 read with Section 144Bof the Income Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2014- 2015. Delay of 4 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

2.

The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1.

That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in Assessment Year2014-2015

not condoning the delay in filing of appeal before NFAC, and in dismissing the appeal as not admitted.

2.

That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC ought to of have held that the re-opening assessment u/s 147 of the Act is time barred and hence the entire assessment order is invalid and void ab-initio.

3.

That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC ought to have deleted the addition made u/s 69A of the Act of Rs. 54,28,790/- in respect of credits in appellant's bank account.

3.

We heard both the sides, perused the material on record and have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions challenging the dismissal of appeal filed by the Assessee before the Learned CIT(A) as being barred by limitation. On perusal of affidavit filed by the Assessee explaining the reasons for delay in filing appeal before the Learned CIT(A), we find that the Assessee had stated that the Assessee was an individual engaged in small scale activity of repairing home appliances. The Assessee did not have any taxable income in the earlier years and therefore, did not file return of income for the preceding assessment years. The Assessee was completely unaware of the initiation of reassessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 and the ex-party Assessment Order, dated 02/05/2023, passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147, read with Section 144/144B of the Act. It is the case of the Assessee that the Assessee only got to know about the aforesaid assessment having been framed on the Assessee by way of a message received on mobile phone in relation to the recovery of the outstanding demand. On perusal of the Assessment Order we find that Assessing Officer had made addition of INR.54,28,790/- in the hands of the Assessee invoking the provisions contained in Section 69A of the Act. We note that in the Statement of Facts filed before the Learned CIT(A) the Assessee had stated that the Assessee had eared commission income of 2% on the transaction routed through his bank account maintained with HDFC bank and that there were no cash deposits made during the relevant previous year. It was also contended that reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation having been initiated after the expiry of 6 years from the end

2 Assessment Year2014-2015

of the relevant assessment year. On perusal of the order impugned, we find that the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the assessment order as being barred by limitation without addressing any of the grounds raised by this Assessee. According to the Learned CIT(A), the Assessee had failed to provide sufficient cause for condonation of delay. We are not in agreement with the view taken by the Learned CIT(A). Accepting the explanation offered by the Assessee as bonafide and reasonable, we overturn the decision of the Learned CIT(A). Keeping in view the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another v. Mst. Katiji & Others [1987 (2) SCR 387], we condone delay of 230 days in filing the appeal before the Learned CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Learned CIT(A) with the directions to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee in the appeal on merits as per law after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed while Ground No. 2 and 3 are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous in view of the fact that we have restored the issues back to the file of Learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. All the rights and contention of the Assessee are left open.

4.

In result, present appeal preferred by the Assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced on 23.10.2026 (Gangadhar Panda) Judicial Member िदनांकDated :23.10.2026 अहमदाबाद Ahmedabad;HC.PS

3 Assessment Year2014-2015

आदेशक""ितिलिपअ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant

2.

""यथ"/ The Respondent. JEETENDRA 3. DEVENDRABHAI UPADHYAY संबंिधतआयकरआयु"/ Concerned CIT DN: c=IN, o=PERSONAL, title=6087, 2.5.4.20=7e5568a89b633f174b28a8 DEVENDRA 0f5e63c638da40b7313fb47ebaefda 4. आयकरआयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A) 841cf59d1703, postalCode=380059, st=Gujarat, BHAI serialNumber=816dc56e896211a1a 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण/ DR, ITAT, 21ccc4abc94ddc94458f4a1b37be8e 1854e9399295106d4, UPADHYAY cn=JEETENDRA DEVENDRABHAI

6.

UPADHYAY गाड"फाईल /Guard file. Date: 2026.10.28 10:08:14 +05'30' आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, उप/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 →