ZALA HARDATTSINH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(2) PRESENT WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2134/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 February 2026AY 2017-18Bench: Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 105-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation genuine. Noting that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders, the Tribunal remanded the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to furnish the required details within a reasonable time.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Zala Hardattsinh, deposited cash amounting to Rs. 22,65,717/- across two bank accounts during the demonetization period (November-December 2016). As no return of income was filed and no reply was provided to statutory notices, the Assessing Officer made an ex-parte addition under Section 69A, taxed at 60% under Section 115BBE. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a 105-day delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine due to delay; Whether the addition of cash deposits during demonetization as unexplained money under Section 69A, taxed under Section 115BBE, was justified; Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities warrant a remand for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6),Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 144,Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: Dr. BRR Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R

Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 16-05-2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC has grievously erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal in limine in as much as that the appeal cannot be dismissed in limine without adjudicating the grounds of appeal. Zala Hardattsinh, A.Y. 2017-18

2.

He has erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay in filing appeal without considering the facts and circumstances explained by the assessee for unintended delay.

3.

He has erred in law and on facts in not

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →