CHINAR VISHAL DESAI ,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD

ITA 348/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 October 2026AY 2018-194 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was not effectively represented before the AO and the CIT(A). Applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be best served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the AO. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to pass a fresh assessment order after providing the assessee with due opportunity. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant materials and supporting documents and comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Chinar Vishal Desai, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The assessment year in question is 2018-19. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a delay of 753 days in filing. The original assessment order was passed under section 270AAC(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, levying tax of Rs. 2,70,380/- on unexplained investment, with the assessee having remained unrepresented before the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without a show cause notice or hearing, ignoring that notices were sent to an incorrect email ID, and failing to consider crucial facts like lack of knowledge of proceedings and the disputed penalty foundation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal due to a delay of 753 days, without issuing a show cause notice or providing a hearing, and ignoring that notices were sent to an incorrect email ID? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and condonation of delay). 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider crucial facts, including the appellant's lack of knowledge of proceedings and the pending quantum assessment where the penalty foundation itself is disputed, leading to an unjust dismissal of the penalty appeal? (Question of fact and law, turning on the merits of the penalty appeal). 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by confirming penalty under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act, ignoring the fact that the entire capital gain transaction was shown in the ITR of the assessee's husband, Mr. Vishal Desai? (Question of law and fact, turning on the applicability of Section 271AAC(1)). Assessee's Contentions: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal due to delay without proper procedure and hearing, ignoring incorrect email ID usage and lack of knowledge of proceedings. The penalty appeal was unjustly dismissed without considering factual specifics. The penalty under Section 271AAC(1) was wrongly confirmed as the capital gain was declared in the husband's return. Revenue's Contentions: The Sr. DR supported the orders of the AO and CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270AAC(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD

Before: NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA & SHRI SANJAY KUMAR

Pronounced: 28.10.2026

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद पीठ�, अहमदाबाद INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD BENCH: A BEFORE NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 348/AHD/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Chinar Vishal Desai Income Tax Officer J/402 Aarohi Elegance, Gala Ward 3(2)(1), Income Tax Gymkhana Road, South Bopal, Office, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad Vs. Bopal S.O, Ambli, Ahmedabad- Ahmedabad-380014, Gujarat 380058, Gujarat अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AIGPD1677A

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Ms. Ridhi Gandhi, CA ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 31.08.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 28.10.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SANJAY KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 19.12.2025 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 348/AHD/2026 Chinar Vishal Desai - 2– 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of Appeal:-

“1) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal due to a delay of 753 days, ignoring that notices were sent to an incorrect email ID, and rejecting the condonation of delay application without a show cause notice OR a hearing. 2) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider crucial facts, including lack of knowledge of the proceedings to appellant, the pending quantum assessment in which penalty foundation itself is disputed and mechanically applied judicial precedents without considering the fact specifics, leading to an unjust dismissal of the penalty appeal 3) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by confirming penalty U/S. 271AAC(1) of the Act and ignoring fact that entire capital gain transaction shown in ITR of Husband, Mr. Vishal Desai.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment order was passed under section 270AAC(1) of the Act, wherein the AO levied tax at the rate of 10% on the tax payable under section 115BBE, amounting to Rs. 2,70,380/-, in respect of unexplained investment, and the assessee did not appear before the ld. AO. Subsequently, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that it was not maintainable due to a delay of 753 days in filing the appeal, holding that no sufficient cause had been made out to condone the delay, without adjudicating the grounds raised in the appeal. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before us.

At the outset, Ms. Ridhi Gandhi, ld. CA has requested to remand the matter back to the AO as the Assessee was remained unrepresented before the AO, in the interest of justice.

Per contra, Sr.D.R. has supported the order the of the AO and CIT(A).

ITA 348/AHD/2026 Chinar Vishal Desai - 3– 6. We have gone through the records of the present case. It is admitted position that the Assessee was not effectively represented in the assessment proceedings as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) in appellate proceedings. In such circumstances, applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors.(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), 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. Hence, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is 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 the notices issued by the Revenue Authorities without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. The order pronounced on 28.10.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (SANJAY KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 28.10.2026 DS, PS

ITA 348/AHD/2026 Chinar Vishal Desai - 4–

Digitally signed by आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : JEETENDRA DEVENDRABHAI UPADHYAY DN: c=IN, o=PERSONAL, JEETENDRA 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant title=6087, 2.5.4.20=7e5568a89b633f17 DEVENDRA 4b28a80f5e63c638da40b731 2. ��थ�/ The Respondent. 3fb47ebaefda841cf59d1703, postalCode=380059, BHAI 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु�/ Concerned CIT st=Gujarat, serialNumber=816dc56e896 आयकरआयु�(अपील) /The CIT(A)- UPADHYAY 211a1a21ccc4abc94ddc9445 4. 8f4a1b37be8e1854e9399295 106d4, cn=JEETENDRA DEVENDRABHAI UPADHYAY 5. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad Date: 2026.10.30 10:07:42 +05'30' गाड�फाईल /Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

Date of dictation (words processed by the Hon’ble JM on his PC) on 13.10.2026. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 14.10.2026. 2. Other Member .2026. 3. 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .2026 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .2026 Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S .2026 6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk .2026 7. 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk .2026 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of Dispatch of the Order .2026 10.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →