Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file an income tax return for AY 2019-20, leading to reopening of the case and an assessment under Sections 147 and 144. Significant additions were made, including Rs. 1,90,77,592/- for unexplained investments. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to an 87-day delay in filing, without adjudicating the case on merits.
Held
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on limitation, emphasizing that meritorious cases should be decided on merits. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds, with a direction to the assessee to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund for non-compliance and delay.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on limitation without hearing it on merits, and the correctness of various additions made by the AO including unexplained investments, speculation income, and interest income.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 144, Section 144B, Section 69, Section 115BBE, Section 234A, Section 234B, Section 234C, Section 234D, Section 270A, Section 271AAC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA
PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of NFAC [in short “CIT(A)”] dated 22.08.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20 in the proceeding u/s 147 read with Section 144 of the Act.
Brief facts of the case are that the assesse did not file return of income for AY 2019-20. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of financial transactions reported in the Systems. In the course of assessment proceeding, no compliance was made by the assessee. It transpired that the assessee had made investment in bonds, debentures and shares to the extent of Rs.1,90,77,592/-. In the absence of any Meenaba Divyavirsinji Alias Digvijaysinhji Jadeja Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2019-20 2 compliance the entire investment was treated as unexplained and added to income. Further, certain other additions were also made and the assessment was completed u/s 147 read with Section 144 of the Act on 25.02.2024 at total income of Rs. 2,76,02,532/-.
Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. Following grounds have been taken in this appeal:
“1. Learned AO has erred in law and on the facts of the case in assuming the jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act.
2. Learned AO has erred in law and on the facts of the case in passing the order u/s 144B of the Act in gross violation of the procedures stated in section 1448 of the Act. Under the facts, the impugned order is nonest in the eyes of law and thus deserves to be annulled 3. Learned AO has erred in law and on the facts of the case in making an addition of Rs.1,90,77,592/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investments.
Learned AO has erred in law and on the facts of the case in making an addition of Rs.66, 166/- on account of alleged speculation income.
Learned AO has erred in law and on the facts of the case in making an addition of Rs.81,32,004/- after treating the.
Leamed AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in making an addition of Rs. 3,26,770/- on account of alleged interest income, received by the Appellant from Bhavnagar District Co Operative Bank Ltd. Meenaba Divyavirsinji Alias Digvijaysinhji Jadeja Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2019-20 3 7. Learned AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in invoking the provisions of S.11588E of the Act.
8. Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in not properly appreciating and considering various evidence and supporting documents available on record during the course of the assessment proceedings and not properly appreciating various facts and law in its proper perspective.
Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/ s.234A/B/C/D.
Learned AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in initiating penalty u/s 270A of the Act.
Learned AO has erred in law and on 271AAC of the Act. ENT on facts of the case in initiating penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act.
Your Appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend and withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal
.”
4. Shri Mohit Balani, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation without adjudicating the appeal of the assessee on merits. He explained that there was delay of 87 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was not condoned by him and the appeal was dismissed in limine. The Ld. AR explained that no compliance could be made before the AO due to default on the part of that consultant. Further, the order of the Assessing Officer was also not communicated to the assessee by the consultant in time, which had resulted in delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR requested that the assessee may be allowed another opportunity to explain the deposits and other issues by setting aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer.
Meenaba Divyavirsinji Alias Digvijaysinhji Jadeja Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2019-20 4 5. Per contra, Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the order of the lower authorities.
6. We have considered the rival submissions. The assessee has not explained the reason for non-compliance before the AO. It is found that the AO had allowed as many as seven opportunities but no compliance was made on any of the occasion. The assessee can’t escape by passing the blame for non-compliance before the AO and also for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), on his counsel. It is a settled law that there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground. The assessee should have been careful enough to ensure that proper compliance was made before the AO in the course of assessment and the appeal was filed before the appellate authority in time. It was the duty of the assessee to watch his affairs before the AO and the CIT(A). The assessee was certainly negligent and we are not convinced with the explanation for non- compliance before the AO and also the delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A). We, therefore, deem it proper to impose a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee which should be paid to Prime Minister National Relief Fund within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt this order.
It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee in the first appeal on merits. He had dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held in the case of Vareli Textile Industries 284 ITR 238 (Gujarat) that meritorious case should not be thrown out on the ground of limitation. Considering the fact that the Meenaba Divyavirsinji Alias Digvijaysinhji Jadeja Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2019-20 5 assessee was a non-filer individual and huge addition of Rs.2.76 Crores was made in his case, the Ld. CIT(A) should have examined the matter and decided the grounds taken by the assessee on merits rather than dismissing the appeal on technical ground by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal. The basic fact as to whether the investments appearing in the name of assessee were new investments or were renewal of old investments, which had a bearing on the addition as made, was not verified. In the interest of justice, therefore, we deem it proper to set aside the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the grounds taken by the assessee on merits, subject to payment of cost by the assessee as directed above. The assessee is free to file additional evidences in support of the grounds taken by him and the Ld. CIT(A) may call for remand report of the Assessing Officer on the additional evidences.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Court on 09/01/2026 at Ahmedabad.