RAMESHKUMAR G. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(5) PRESENT JURISDICTION ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद यायपीठ
अहमदाबाद यायपीठ
अहमदाबाद यायपीठ
अहमदाबाद यायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद।
अहमदाबाद।
अहमदाबाद।
अहमदाबाद।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
]BEFORE MS.SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Asstt.Year : 2013-14
Rameshkumar G Patel
20, Muktanand Society
Karelibaug
Vadodara 390 018. PAN : AGZPP 2126 P
Vs.
ITO, Ward-3(1)(5)
Present Juris.
Ward-3(1)(2)
Vadodara.
(Applicant)
(Responent)
Assessee by :
Shri Viranch Modi, AR
Revenue by :
Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 28/07/2025
घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025
आदेश
आदेश
आदेश
आदेश/O R D E R
PER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated
21.11.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National
Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”], arising from the assessment order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the Income
Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(5), Vadodara [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing
Officer or AO”] under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], for the Assessment Year 2013–14. 2. Condonation of Delay
1 At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 20 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay accompanied by a duly sworn affidavit dated 01.04.2025, wherein it 2
has been explained that the delay occurred due to inadvertent omission on the part of the assessee in handing over the impugned order and relevant documents to the new Chartered Accountant engaged for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It has been further submitted that upon follow-up, the necessary papers were eventually submitted, and the appeal was filed shortly thereafter.
2 While the explanation offered in the affidavit appears to be bona fide, we express our serious displeasure over the casual manner in which the statutory timeline has been handled. The assessee ought to have exercised due diligence in ensuring timely filing, particularly when professional assistance was sought.
3 Nevertheless, in the interest of substantial justice and considering that the delay is marginal and not deliberate, we are inclined to condone the delay of 20 days. The delay is accordingly condoned, albeit with a caution to the assessee to be more vigilant in future proceedings. The appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
3 Facts of the Case
1 The assessee filed his original return of income for A.Y. 2013–14 on 29.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs.2,44,950/-. Subsequently, during the course of processing disclosures made under the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS), 2016, it came to the notice of the Department that the assessee had disclosed investment of Rs.92,62,433/- in immovable property for the relevant previous year 2012–13. As per the Department’s records, the total tax liability under IDS was computed at Rs.41,68,096/-, and the assessee was required to pay 25% thereof, amounting to Rs.10,42,024/- by 30.11.2016. However, the assessee paid only Rs.4,18,096/-, failing to comply with the full payment requirement under the Scheme. Consequently, the declaration under IDS was treated as invalid. 3
2 Based on this, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment and accordingly issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2019. Since no return was filed in response, the AO issued further notices under section 142(1) on 04.09.2019, 26.09.2019, and 12.10.2019, seeking explanation on the source of investment and requiring details of income and expenses claimed in the return. The assessee either did not respond or sought adjournments. In the course of the reassessment proceedings, the AO also issued a notice under section 133(6) of the Act to the Sub-