JASUBHAI GANDABHAI PATEL,PALAIYA, DEHGAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1556/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not attend proceedings before the AO and CIT(A) and the appeal to the CIT(A) was belated. While acknowledging the impact of COVID, the delay was not fully attributable to it. The matter was remanded back to the AO for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income and respond to statutory notices for AY 2017-18. Consequently, an assessment order was passed under Section 144, making an addition for unexplained money. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a significant delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was belated and if the delay was justifiable. Whether the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 139(1),Section 142(1),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ C ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Jasubhai Gandabhai Patel, with Shri Arjun Joshi, ARs
For Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 03.11.2025Pronounced: 09.12.2025

आदेश/O R D E R

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM:

1.

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-4, Kolkata arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “…That I am a Farmer and also illiterate and also has no understanding of the Income Tax and other regulations and since the notices were also sent in English I failed to understand the significance of those notices sent on several occasions b the Respected Commissioner f Tax (Appeal). That later being made aware by my son (who lived In Pune for employment reasons but returned back home due to losing Job due to COVID-19), about he significance of the Income Tax Notices. That since the notices regarding hearing of Appeal matter was sent on Email address, I failed to be in knowledge of such notice That I had regret not complying to this crucial matter. However I submitted several information and document which the Ld. CIT(A) did not considered which deciding the matter Suo moto and passed order u/s 144. That I realized his grave mistake and now seek Pardon. I pray to this Tribunal that this appeal is accepted and pray that I am given an opportunity to explain…’’

3. The assessee deposited cash of Rs.11,50,000/- in Bank Account No. 40313001006 and Rs.2,32,000/- in Bank Account No. 40310005264, both maintained with Dena Bank, Dehgam Branch, during the demonetization period i.e., from 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. The assessee did not file the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Further, statutory notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time, but the assessee failed to file any details or return of income. Consequently, the Assessing Officer passed an Assessment Order under section 144 of the Act, making an addition of Rs.72,97,814/- under section 69A as unexplained money.

4.

Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was filed with a delay of 435 days.

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that due to the COVID period, the assessee could not file the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) within the stipulated time, and the delay was not deliberate. Therefore, the Ld. AR requested that the matter be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the issues on merits after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

3 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order as well as the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Assessment Order was passed under section 144 of the Act, which indicates that the assessee did not attend the proceedings before the Assessing Officer and as well before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee has also filed the appeal belatedly before the Ld. CIT(A). The reasons stated for the delay in filing the appeal were not fully attributable to the COVID period, as it covered only part of the delay. Therefore, it would be appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the assessee. The assessee shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the “Prime Minister’s Relief Fund” within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Since the matter has not been adjudicated on merits, it is appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication after verifying the details filed by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given due opportunity of hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09.12.2025 at Ahmedabad.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →