VIMALABEN V BRAHMBHATT,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(3), BARODA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1945/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 February 2026AY 2011-12Bench: the CIT(A). Though delay was explained in the statement of facts before CIT(A), the same was not considered and dismissed the appeal in limine by CIT(A). The ld. counsel submitted before us copy of sale deed dated 13-09-2010 for Rs.26,22,360/- which was the source of cash deposit in her bank account, as well as the death certificate of his son, relatives and thereby requested to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain her case before Assessing Officer.3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the penalty appeal. It set aside the quantum appeal (ITA No. 2686/Ahd/2025) to the Assessing Officer, directing a fresh hearing on merits with a new opportunity for the assessee. Consequently, the penalty appeal (ITA No. 1945/Ahd/2024) was allowed, with the option for the AO to initiate fresh penalty proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an agriculturist, did not file an income tax return for AY 2011-12. Her assessment was reopened under section 148 due to cash deposits of Rs. 18,43,950/- in her bank account, leading to an ex-parte re-assessment and addition as undisclosed income. Her subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a 1307-day delay, caused by her son's death, despite the counsel submitting a sale deed as the source of funds.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte re-assessment order for cash deposits as undisclosed income was valid, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. Also, whether the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 271(1)(c),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Parin S. Shah, A.R
For Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER

PER TR SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

These two appeals are filed by the assessee as against separate appellate orders dated 07-10-2025 and 28-08-2024 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre arising out of the re-assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act and penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act relating to the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

Brief facts of the cases, the assessee is an agriculturist and joint owner of ancestral agricultural lands. Since there was no & 1945/Ahd/2024 Vimlaben V. Brahmbhatt, A.Y. 2011-12 taxable income, the assessee has not filed her Return of Income. However, the assessment for the assessment year 2011-12, was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on the ground that the assessee made cash deposit aggregating to Rs. 18,43,950/- with her Dena Bank account. The assessee neither filed the return nor participated in the hearing which has resulted in passing ex-parte re-assessment order making addition of Rs. 18,43,950/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. The assessee requested her son Jigneshbhai Vinodbhai Brahmbhatt to file further appeal. He also died due to cancer disease on 05-03-2020 which was resulted in a delay of 1307 days in filing appeal before the CIT(A). Though delay was explained in the statement of facts before CIT(A), the same was not considered and dismissed the appeal in limine by CIT(A). The ld. counsel submitted before us copy of sale deed dated 13- 09-2010 for Rs. 26,22,360/- which was the source of cash deposit in her bank account, as well as the death certificate of his son, relatives and thereby requested to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain her case before Assessing Officer.

3.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. Since the assessee is an agriculturist by profession though not filed return of income now produced before us revenue records as well as bank statements. In the interest of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the matter back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass fresh order on merits of the case.

& 1945/Ahd/2024 Vimlaben V. Brahmbhatt, A.Y. 2011-12

4.

In the result, the appeal being filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

13 days in filing the appeal which is hereby condoned. This appeal is against the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2011-12. Since the quantum appeal is already set aside to the Jurisdiction Assessing Officer, the penalty appeal is hereby allowed and it is open to the Assessing Officer to proceed with fresh penalty proceedings in accordance with provisions of law.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →