KIRAN AMISHKUMAR THAKRAR,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 247/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 December 2025AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had issued multiple notices to the assessee to submit documents in support of their case, but the assessee did not comply. The Tribunal invoked the Latin maxim 'Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt' (the law assists those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over their rights), affirming that this principle is upheld by higher courts. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had not complied with notices issued by the AO and had been negligent in pursuing the case. Consequently, the ITAT directed the assessee to deposit a cost of Rs. 10,000 with the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within 10 days. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the AO. The order of the lower authorities was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issues of additions, disallowances, or penalties.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kiran Amishkumar Thakrar, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The assessment year in question is 2019-20. The original assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, reopening the assessment. The AO assessed the total income at Rs. 55,79,230, an increase from the returned income of Rs. 27,56,350. This included an addition of Rs. 26,72,880 on account of on-money payment for a flat purchase, treated as unexplained investment under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE, and a disallowance of Rs. 1,50,000 claimed under Chapter VI-A. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, noting the assessee's failure to submit any supporting documents or arguments. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer was valid and confirmed by the CIT(A)? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 26,72,880 on account of on-money payment for the purchase of a flat, treated as unexplained investment under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified and confirmed by the CIT(A)? (Question of law and fact) 3. Whether the disallowance of the claim for deduction under Chapter VI-A (Section 80C) of Rs. 1,50,000 was justified and confirmed by the CIT(A)? (Question of law and fact) 4. Whether the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC(1), Section 270A, and Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified and confirmed by the CIT(A)? (Question of law and fact) 5. Whether the charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified and confirmed by the CIT(A)? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee, through their Authorized Representative (AR), prayed for one more opportunity to explain the case before the lower authorities. The grounds of appeal also broadly challenged the AO's actions regarding reopening, additions, disallowances, and penalty/interest initiation as wrong, unwarranted, unjustified, and bad in law. Revenue's Contentions: The Learned Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 80C,Section 271AAC(1),Section 270A,Section 272A(1)(d),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 139,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA

For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 18/12/2025Pronounced: 23/12/2025

आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, JM:

1.

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC”], dated 24.03.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO”) u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), vide order dated 28.03.2024.

2.

Grounds of appeal

raised by the assesse, are as follows:

1. The learned commissioner of income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of reopening the 1 assessment and pass the order u/s.147 of the i t act whereby assessed the total income Dff Kiran Amishkumar Thakar of rs.55,79,230/- as against the returned income of rs.27,56,350/- it is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law.

2. The learned commissioner of income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of made the addition on account of on-money payment for purchase of flat of rs.26,72,880/- is treated as unexplained investment u/s.69 rws 115bbe of the i t act and added to the total income of rs.26,72,880/- it is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law.

3. The learned commissioner of income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of made the addition on account of disallowance of claim of deduction under chapter vi-a 80c of rs.1,50,000/- it is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law.

4. The learned commissioner of income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of mentioned the facts in body of order which is very far away from the truth and wrongly applied the section 115bbe fo the i t act and initiated the huge demand of rs.35,34,735/- it is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 5. the learned commissioner of income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre as erred in confirming the action of the ssessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s.271aac(1) of the it act it is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 6. the learned commissioner of income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s.270a of the i t act it is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 7. the learned commissioner of income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s.272a(1)(d) of the i t act it is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 8. the learned commissioner of income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of charging the interest u/s.234a, b c of the i t act it is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 9. your applicant reserves the right in addition or alteration in the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing

3.

Brief facts of the case that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income u/s 139 of the Act for the year under consideration on 23.10.2019 declaring therein total income of Rs. 27,56,350/-. This case was reopened after following due process as the assessee had made cash transaction for purchase of Page 2 of 5 Dff Kiran Amishkumar Thakar office No.810 in Project name 'THE SPIRE' developed by M/s Buildcon Associates. Notice u/s. 148 dated 28.3.2023 was issued. Thereafter, notice u/s.143(2) and notices u/s. 142(1) were also issued calling relevant details and are available in e-filing portal. In the response to notice/s. 148, the assessee has filed his ROI. The assessee has shown business income.

After considering above reply of assessee, but due to discrepancy observed subsequently a show cause notice issued on 06/03/2024. In response to the above SCN, the assessee has not uploaded any reply in the given time frame. The assessing officer computed total income of the assessee are as follows:

R/I as per return filed u/s.148 on 20.04.2023 27,56,350/- Add: Addition u/s.69 rws 115BBE for property 26,72,880/- Disallowance of claimed under chapter VIA 1,50,000/- Assessed Income 55,79,230/-

4.

That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of the AO, before the Ld.CIT(A). That the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, observing as follows:

“5.5 Thus, it is very clear form the above table that the appellant has chosen not to submit anything in support of his various grounds of appeal

. In such a scenario, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant does not have anything to say or have anything to offer to the appellate authority in support of his various grounds of appeal, and thus, that the appellant does not want to press any of the grounds of appeal. In absence of any material, arguments or submission from the appellant, I am left with the documents and facts available on record to base my judgement. And these are primarily the assessment order passed by the AO. Accordingly, after due and careful consideration of the matter, I do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the AO as enumerated in the assessment order. 5.6 I, therefore, dismiss all the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee.

6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”

6.

During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assesse submitted that the Ld.AR of the assessee prayed that one more opportunity may kindly be given to the assessee to explain the case before the lower authorities.

7.

On the other hand, the Ld.DR for the revenue relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A).

8.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the notices dated 21.10.2024, 14.11.2024, 24.11.2024, and 24.02.2025 have been issued by the Ld.CIT(A) to submit the documents in support of the case. Since, the appellant did not comply with terms of notice. It is now a well settled principles which find its expression in the latin maxim "Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt ". It means that the law assists those who are vigilant about their rights and not those sleep over their rights. This maxim and guiding principle have been affirmed and reaffirmed in various higher courts, including in the Supreme Court of India in innumerable cases. We further note that the assessee has not made the compliance with the notices for hearing issued by the Ld. AO. We note that the assessee has not gave due care and attention to the case and negligent in pursuing the case before the AO, for this non-cooperative attitude in pursuing the case. We direct the assessee to deposit a cost of Rs.10,000/-, and the same is to be deposited with Prime Minster Relief fund (Government of India), within 10 days from today, and the receipt is to be submitted with the Registrar of this Tribunal. Keeping in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, we grant an opportunity to the assessee to present his case before the AO. We set aside the order of lower authority and remit the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh Page 4 of 5

9.

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 23/12/2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →