AMISH PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL,PETLAD V. ITO PETLAD, PETLAD

ITA 578/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Amish Purshottamdas Patel, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal was initially against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, which included significant additions to the assessee's income under unexplained investments and undisclosed sales. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's findings but granted partial relief. The assessee, unaware of the CIT(A) proceedings due to his consultant's failure to inform him, filed a delayed appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found the delay to be due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29703 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RIGNESH DAS
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद \u0011ायपीठ “सी“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ C ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD \u0016ी टी.आर. से\u0019\u001aल क ुमार, \u0011ाियक सद\u001c एवं \u0016ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद\u001c क े सम\"। ] ] BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.578/Ahd/2024 िनधा \u000fरण वष\u000f /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Amish Purshottamdas Patel Amish Traders Gandhi Chowk Petlad Petlad – 388 450 बनाम/ v/s. The ITO Petlad – 388 450 \u0013थायी लेखा सं./PAN: ANRPP 7727 M (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 21/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], dated 17.01.2023, for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14, which arose from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as “AO”] under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], dated 29.03.2016. ITA No.578/ahd/2024 Amish Purshottamdas Patel Asst. Year : 2013-14 2 Facts of the Case: 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Bhardo (cattle feed) and also a partner in Malhar Developers. The return of income was filed on 30.08.2014, declaring a taxable income of Rs.4,13,470/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2016, determining an assessed income of Rs.65,21,330/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) made two primary additions namely – i. Unexplained Investment in Land – Rs.55,48,300/-. ii. Undisclosed Sale of Property – Rs.5,59,565/- as Short-Term Capital Gain (STCG). 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) but did not file any written submissions or attend the hearings despite multiple notices. CIT(A) upheld the AO’s findings but granted partial relief. The assessee remained non-compliant before CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: 1. Addition of Rs.13,87,075/- in respect of share of land is not justifiable in fact and law. 2. Addition in respect of sale of house Rs.5,59,565/- is not justifiable in fact and in law. ITA No.578/ahd/2024 Amish Purshottamdas Patel Asst. Year : 2013-14 3 5. It is observed that there was a delay of 378 days in filing the present appeal before the us. The assessee has filed a delay condonation petition, supported by an affidavit, explaining the reasons for the delay. The assessee contended that his tax consultant, Kirtilbhai Ambalal Soni, was handling all tax-related matters but never informed him about the CIT(A) proceedings. Unfortunately, the consultant passed away on 18.02.2024, and only thereafter, upon appointing a new consultant, the assessee came to know about the CIT(A) order dated 17.01.2023. The Departmental Representative (DR) did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay, considering the genuine and bona fide reasons stated in the affidavit. 6. We have perused the submissions and considered the facts. It is a well- settled principle that while condoning delays, courts should adopt a liberal approach, provided there is no deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the litigant. In the present case, we find that the delay was due to circumstances beyond the assessee’s control, and denying the assessee an opportunity to contest the CIT(A) order on merits would cause grave injustice. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 378 days in filing the present appeal and proceed to decide the matter on merits. 7. During the course of hearing before us, the Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee was unaware of the proceedings before CIT(A) due to the reasons explained in the delay condonation petition. The AR requested that the matter be restored to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, as the assessee now wishes to contest the additions on merits. ITA No.578/ahd/2024 Amish Purshottamdas Patel Asst. Year : 2013-14 4 8. The Departmental Representative (DR), while pointing out that the assessee was non-compliant before CIT(A), did not object to remanding the matter, considering the genuine reasons submitted in the affidavit. The AR, on behalf of the assessee, undertook to fully cooperate in the fresh proceedings before CIT(A). 9. We have considered the submissions of both parties and the material on record. Given that the assessee was deprived of an opportunity to present his case, we find it appropriate to set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication on merits. 9.1. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is restored to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate in the appellate proceedings. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st February, 2025 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated /02/2025 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS ITA No.578/ahd/2024 Amish Purshottamdas Patel Asst. Year : 2013-14 5 आदेश की \"ितिलिप अ#ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ$ / The Appellant 2. \"%थ$ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु& / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु& ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)-(NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभागीय \"ितिनिध , अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाड\u000f फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स%ािपत \"ित //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation (word processed by Hon’ble AM in his laptop) : 21.2.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member. : 21.2.2025 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S : 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement. : 5. Date on which fair order placed before Other Member : 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S. : 21.2.25 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 21.2.25 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk. : 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order. : 10. Date of Despatch of the Order : "