ANJU BHARAT CHELANI,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2598/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Anju Bharat Chelani, the appellant, who contested the order of the CIT(Appeals) which dismissed her appeal due to a 17-day delay in filing. The original assessment included an addition of Rs. 1,07,070 as unexplained investment under sections 69B and 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, related to a property purchase. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal without examining the merits, solely on the grounds of delay. The Tribunal found that the delay was marginal and that all relevant facts were available, thus deciding to set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remand the case for a thorough examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838017 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KETAKI DESAI
• Assessee Lawyers: S.N. DIVATIA; SAMIR VORA; ARS
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.2598/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Anju Bharat Chelani, Sumit Nivas Chandravati Society, Bhairavnath Road, Ahmedabad-380008 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad [PAN No.AFDPC7253B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, ARs Respondent by: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 05.12.2025 passed for A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1.1 The order passed 250 passed on 05.12.2025 for A.Y.2019-20 by NFAC, Delhi (for short \"C1T(A)\") dismissing the appeal by refusing to condone the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal, though the explanation was available in the SOF to the appeal memo and thereby confirming addition of Rs.1,07,070/- as unexplained investment u/s 69B r.w.s. 115BBE towards the purchase of shop in Mapple Tree Project jointly with others is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal late by 17 days, though the explanation was available in the SOF to the appeal memo. The CIT(A) had not given any opportunity to explain delay even in the notice dtd. 06.11.2025 and the issuance of penalty notice dtd. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2598/Ahd/2025 Anju Bharat Chelani vs. ITO Asst. Year –2019-20 - 2– 02.05.2024 was available on IT Portal so that there was gross violation of principles of natural justice. 1.3 The Ld. C1T(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering the merits of the case as per the grounds of appeal stated in the appeal memo. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in confirming impliedly the validity of reopening u/s 148 which was barred by limitation u/s 149(1) as well as on merits, the addition of Rs. 1,07,770/-for AY 2019-20 was grossly unjustified both on facts and in law. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding that the appellant had made unexplained investment of Rs. 1,07,070/- in AY 2019-20 towards shop in Mapple Tree Project and thereby confirming the addition of Rs. 1,07,070/- u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE. 3.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding that the appellant had made unexplained investment of Rs. 1,07,070/- in AY 2019-20 towards shop in Mapple Tree Project and thereby confirming the addition of Rs. 1,07,070/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2019-20 on 15.07.2019 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,01,090/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from the Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad, wherein it was alleged that the assessee had made unaccounted on-money investment in a property transaction during the relevant financial year. On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). In response, the assessee filed return of income on 24.04.2023 declaring total income of Rs. 2,14,080/-. 4. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and the assessee furnished replies and details on various dates. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had jointly purchased a property along with another co-purchaser for a recorded consideration of Rs. 55,20,620/-. As per information obtained Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2598/Ahd/2025 Anju Bharat Chelani vs. ITO Asst. Year –2019-20 - 3– from the Investigation Wing, a ledger found during survey proceedings in the case of the developer allegedly reflecting total investment of Rs.61,57,940/-, including alleged on-money payment of Rs. 6,37,320/- by the assessee. Considering the assessee’s share in the property at 16.80%, the Assessing Officer treated a sum of Rs. 1,07,070/- as unexplained investment made by the assessee and accordingly, made an addition under section 69B read with section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with sections 147 and 144B of the Act assessing the total income at Rs. 3,21,150/- and the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings on the ground of limitation and lack of jurisdiction under the new reassessment regime, alleged violation of principles of natural justice on account of non-supply of relied upon material and denial of cross- examination, and also challenged the addition of Rs. 1,07,070/- on merits contending that no unexplained investment had been made by the assessee. 6. While dealing with the appeal, the CIT(Appeals) noted that the appeal had been filed with a delay of 17 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay on the ground that the assessment order was not available on the income-tax portal. The CIT(Appeals) observed that no documentary evidence had been furnished to substantiate this claim and further noted that the assessee had not satisfactorily explained how the appeal could be filed subsequently if the order was allegedly not available. Holding Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2598/Ahd/2025 Anju Bharat Chelani vs. ITO Asst. Year –2019-20 - 4– that no reasonable cause for the delay had been established, the CIT(Appeals) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the CIT(Appeals) declined to admit the appeal and did not adjudicate the grounds on merits, despite recording that written submissions had been filed and that details and facts relating to the assessment had been placed on record during appellate proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed in limine without examination of the issues on merits. 7. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. It is evident that the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed solely on the ground that the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal was not condoned. At the same time, from the order of the CIT(Appeals) itself, it emerges that the assessee had placed written submissions and relevant details on record and that all the facts relating to the assessment were available for consideration. In our considered view, the delay involved is of a very short duration and the approach adopted by the CIT(Appeals) in refusing to condone such a marginal delay has resulted in denial of adjudication on merits. 9. It is a settled principle that the provisions relating to limitation should be construed in a liberal manner so as to advance substantial justice, particularly where no mala fide or deliberate negligence is attributable to the assessee. The power of the appellate authority to condone delay is meant to ensure that technicalities do not defeat the cause of justice. In the present case, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2598/Ahd/2025 Anju Bharat Chelani vs. ITO Asst. Year –2019-20 - 5– when all facts and submissions were already available on record and the delay was only of 17 days, the appeal ought to have been decided on merits instead of being dismissed in limine. 10. In the interest of justice, therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration in accordance with law. The CIT(Appeals) shall re-examine the entire issue afresh, including the validity of the reassessment proceedings as well as the addition made on merits, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and of producing all relevant material in support of her case. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate in the proceedings and to place all evidences and explanations before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). 11. With these directions, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 18/02/2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA P. SINHA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 18/02/2026 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "