BIPIN GOPALBHAI PATEL,BARDOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, BARDOLI, BARDOLI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a senior citizen of 66 years of age. Considering the facts and the assessee's submission regarding incorrect email communication leading to non-appearance before the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. This applied to both the quantum additions and the penalty proceedings. However, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had remained non-compliant throughout the assessment and appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) and had not furnished any details. Therefore, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for each appeal, to be deposited with the Prime Minister Relief Fund, as a condition for setting aside the matter for de-novo consideration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Bipin Gopalbhai Patel, an individual, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions of Rs. 10,00,000/- for unexplained investment in an insurance policy, Rs. 5,77,640/- for unexplained bank credits, and Rs. 12,00,000/- for unexplained cash deposits. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee contended that notices were sent to an incorrect email address, leading to non-appearance and delayed filing of the appeal before the ITAT. The revenue relied on the orders of the AO and CIT(A). The ITAT noted the assessee's non-compliance throughout the proceedings.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as per the facts and circumstances of the case and the law on the subject? 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without passing a speaking order? 3. Whether the AO erred in re-opening the assessment under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. Whether the AO erred in making an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- as unexplained investment in an insurance policy? 5. Whether the AO erred in making an addition of Rs. 5,77,640/- as unexplained credits in the bank account? 6. Whether the AO erred in making an addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposits in the bank account? 7. Whether the AO erred in levying penalty of Rs. 7,07,911/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act? Assessee's Contentions: The CIT(A) sent email communications to a wrong email address, preventing the assessee from appearing and leading to the dismissal of the appeal. This also caused a delay of 588 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT. If given an opportunity, the assessee would comply with notices and provide evidence for the sources of cash deposits/credits. Revenue's Contentions: The Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) in their respective orders.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These are appeals filed by the Assessee 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 vide orders dated 26.05.2023 passed for A.Y. 2011-12.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
(A.Y. 2011-12) “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without passing speaking order.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in re-opening assessment u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the IT. Act, 1961. & 279/Srt/2025 Bipin Gopalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year –2011-12 - 2– 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. Assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- as unexplained investment being investment in insurance policy.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. Assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 5,77,640/- as unexplained credits being credits in bank account.
6. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. Assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposits being cash deposits in bank account.
7. It is therefore prayed that the matter may be set aside to the file of learned CIT(A) or assessing officer or the addition made by the assessing officer may please be deleted.
8. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”
(A.Y. 2011-12) “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without passing speaking order.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law on subject, assessing officer has erred in levying penalty of Rs.7,07,911/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act.
4. It is therefore prayed that the matter may be set aside to the file of learned CIT(A) or assessing officer or the penalty levied by the assessing officer may please be deleted.
Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of appeal.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and he did not file his return of income for the impugned year under consideration. The Assessing Officer on the basis of information received from ADIT & 279/Srt/2025 Bipin Gopalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year –2011-12 - 3– (Investigation), Surat noticed that the assessee had paid total insurance premium of Rs. 10,00,000/- and accordingly, notices were sent to inquire into the sources of such payment of insurance premium. However, the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was added as unexplained investment in insurance policy in the hands of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 5,77,640/- on account of credits appearing in assessee’s bank account held with Bank of Baroda, for which the assessee did not file any explanation. Also, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had made total cash deposits of Rs. 12 lakhs in his bank account held with Bank of Baroda and in absence of any explanation by the assessee with regards to the source of deposits, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 12 lakhs as unexplained income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income.
In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) issued various notices of hearing, which remained uncomplied with and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account of non-appearance.
5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had sent email communications at wrong email address, which was different from the email address mentioned by the assessee in Form No. 35. It was for this reason that the assessee could not cause appearance before Ld. CIT(A) and appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account of non- appearance. Further, since all communications were sent by Ld. CIT(A) at the incorrect email id, the assessee was not aware about the passing of order & 279/Srt/2025 Bipin Gopalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year –2011-12 - 4– by Ld. CIT(A), which caused the delay of 588 days in filing of appeal before ITAT. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that if given an opportunity of hearing, he would diligently comply with all notices of hearing and furnish all necessary supporting evidences to show the source of cash deposits / credits in his bank account.
In response, Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) in their respective orders.
On going through the facts of the assessee’s case and taking into consideration the fact that the assessee is a senior citizen of 66 years of age the matter is hereby restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. However, we also observe that all throughout assessment and appellate proceedings before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had remained non- complaint and did not furnish any details. Accordingly, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- is imposed on the assessee for purposes of getting the matter set-aside to the file of Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. The cost of Rs. 10,000/- is required to be deposited with the Prime Minister Relief Fund for the purposes of getting the matter set-aside to the file of Assessing Officer.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Now we shall deal with assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 279/Srt/2025
We note that the assessee’s appeal with respect to quantum additions made by the Assessing Officer in assessee’s appeal No. 278/Srt/2025 has & 279/Srt/2025 Bipin Gopalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year –2011-12 - 5– been restored to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. Since we have restored the appeal of the assessee with respect to quantum proceedings to the file of Assessing Officer, consequently, assessee’s appeal against imposition of penalty is also restored to the file of Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- in relation to penalty matter as well.
In the result, both appeals are hereby restored to the file of Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 18/07/2025
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gr Infra Projects Limited Ratlam Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Pankaj Das vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
