KANJIBHAI DAYALBHAI PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-3, NAVSARI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1189/SRT/2025Status: HeardITAT Surat30 January 2026AY 2012-13Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to delay. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, with a direction for the assessee to comply with notices.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income, and the case was reopened under section 147 based on AIR information regarding cash deposits. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 26,50,450/- as unexplained money/credit. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a significant delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine due to delay without considering the merits. Proper procedure for de novo assessment after remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.01.2026Pronounced: 30.01.2026

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

Delay condoned.

1.

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

In the present case, the assessee did not file her return of income for the year under consideration. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information supplied through AIR wherein it was reflected that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.10,50,000/- in his saving bank account for the year under consideration. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer completed the Kanjibhai Dayalbhai Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 28.11.2019, making an addition of Rs.26,50,450/- by treating the same as unexplained money/unexplained credit.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in-limine citing a delay of 1329 days in filing the appeal, and not finding the cause for delay as reasonable.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

We have perused the order of the authorities below and the material placed on record. On going through the record, we find that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) in-limine. Hence, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for conducting the assessment de novo, after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, failing which the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

6.

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

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 30.01.2026

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →