PRAVINBHAI BABUBHAI PRAJAPATI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1731/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: the Assessing Officer, therefore, the assessment was finalized under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.49,05,402/- under Section 69A as unexplained deposit / investment.3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's medical condition which prevented participation in prior proceedings. In the interest of justice, the tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication on the merits, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of hearing and to present all evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee made cash deposits during demonetization but failed to file a return of income, resulting in an ex-parte assessment under Section 144 and an addition of Rs. 49,05,402/- under Section 69A. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte. The assessee approached the ITAT with a delayed appeal, citing medical conditions that prevented participation in earlier proceedings and requesting a fresh opportunity to present evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities erred in confirming the addition under Section 69A and levy of tax under Section 115BBE ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing, particularly given the assessee's medical condition preventing participation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R
Pronounced: 02.12.2025

(Assessment Year: 2017-18) Pravinbhai Babubhai Prajapati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 12, Kalpana Nagar Society, Ward-3, Part-II, BH Atithi Hotel Dehgam, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar-382305 [PAN No.ASHPP4948F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri M K Patel, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R. 01.12.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 02.12.2025 O R D E R The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 28.11.2024 for A.Y. 2017- 18.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in not granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, and in deciding the appeal vide ex-parte order.

2. That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 49,05,402/- made u/s 69A of the Act towards alleged unexplained deposits / credits in appellant’s bank account.

3.

That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the addition and the levy of tax u/s 115BBE of the Act.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal

.”

3. As per the information available on the ITBA module in the case of assessee, the Department found that the assessee made cash deposits of Rs.

Pravinbhai Babubhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst.Year–2017-18 - 2 - 12,05,000/- during the demonetization period in State Bank of India and The Ahmedabad Mercantile Cooperative Bank. The case was taken for scrutiny and accordingly, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 08.03.2018 to the assessee. The assessee did not file return of income for the relevant assessment year. The statutory notices were not replied and no details were filed before the Assessing Officer, therefore, the assessment was finalized under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,05,402/- under Section 69A as unexplained deposit / investment.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

There is a delay of 224 days in filing the present appeal as the assessee was undergoing surgery during the period 29.06.2024 and 09.06.20256 as mentioned in the Affidavit dated 30.08.2025. The reason for delay appears to be genuine, hence, delay is condoned.

6.

The Ld. AR submitted that due to assessee’s medical condition the assessee could not file the appeals before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) and was not able to follow up his case before both the parties despite the appointment of professionals. The Ld. AR further submitted that one more opportunity may be given to place his evidences before the AO and the opportunity be given to the assessee as the credit entry reflected in bank statement also includes entry of loan amount which was taken by the assessee during the relevant period.

Pravinbhai Babubhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst.Year–2017-18 - 3 - 7. The Ld. DR submitted that the ample opportunity was given by the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) and therefore, relied upon the order of the CIT(A) as well as assessment order.

8.

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee was undergoing surgeries and having held issues since the Covid period and therefore, assessee cannot be personally held liable for not attending the proceedings and not following the proceedings before both the authorities and therefore, in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the issues on merit after taking into account the evidences filed by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 02/12/2025

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →