BABUBHAI PUNMAJI GEHLOT,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

MA 123/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Babulal Punmaji Gehlot, the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning an assessment year 2007-08. The original dispute arose when the assessee failed to comply with notices during the assessment proceedings, leading the Assessing Officer to finalize the assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's subsequent appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to being time-barred. The ITAT initially restored the matter for de-novo consideration despite the delay, but the assessee's Miscellaneous Application, which contested the Tribunal's focus on his evasive conduct rather than the service of the assessment order, was dismissed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314678 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B.P. SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: NIMESH VAYAWALA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Period of limitation
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.123/Ahd/2024 in I.T.A. No.1033/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) Babulal Punmaji Gehlot, B-10, Laxmi Villa Green, Nr. 108 Emergency, Nava Naroda Ahmedabad-382330 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(3), Ahmedabad [PAN No.ABMPG4411A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Nimesh Vayawala, A.R. Respondent by: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 07.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.05.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is a Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee against the order passed by ITAT in ITA No. 1033 & 1034/Ahd/2019 vide order dated 23.08.2024. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee did not comply with notices issued by the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer proceeded to finalise assessment order under Section 144 of the Act, wherein certain additions were made in the hands of the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee filed appeal against the aforesaid assessment order after a gap of over seven years, before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in order to verify the correct date of service of order passed by the Assessing M.A No.123/Ahd/2024 (in ITA No. 1033/Ahd/2019) Babubhai Punmaji Gehlot vs. ITO Asst. Year –2007-08 - 2– Officer called for the case records and observed that the assessment order was served upon the assessee by affixture, since the assessee had remained evasive and the assessee had clearly filed appeal after a gap of over seven years, which was beyond the period of limitation. Accordingly, in absence of any reasonable cause for such inordinate delay in filing of appeal, Ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. In appeal before ITAT, the Tribunal observed that despite service of notice on the aassessee during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had deliberately refused to participate in assessment procedings. Further, the Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had tried to serve the assessment order on the assessee by speed post, which could not be served on the assessee. It was only when the bank account of the assessee was attached by the Revenue Authorities that the assessee filed appeal against the assessment order dated 31.12.2009 on 01.02.2017. It was on these facts and after looking into totality of the case records, that the Tribunal was of the view that clearly the appeal filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) was time barred and for which, the assessee had given no plausible explanation. However, in the interest of justice the matter was restored by the Tribunal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de- novo consideration with an opportunity to allow the assessee to present it’s case on merits. 4. The assessee has filed the present Miscellaneous Application in which the assessee has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in facts and in law in looking into the conduct of assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, which was not warranted and the Tribunal should have restricted itself only to the issue of service of assessment order, by way of affixture which M.A No.123/Ahd/2024 (in ITA No. 1033/Ahd/2019) Babubhai Punmaji Gehlot vs. ITO Asst. Year –2007-08 - 3– as per the Counsel for the assessee was not in accordance with the correct procedure. On going through the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, it is observed that the facts of assessee’s case were discussed in detail wherein it was observed that the assessee had remained evasive and non- cooperative during the course of assessment proceedings and was deliberately trying to avoid service of notice and had further not participated in assessment proceedings and neither filed appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer before the Ld. CIT(A). It was only when the bank account of the assessee in Ahmedabad was attached that the assessee immediately proceeded to file appeal before Ld. CIT(A) after a gap of over seven years. We are of the considered view that vide the present order, the assessee is only seeking a review of a well deliberated order passed by the Tribunal, and this application is outside the scope of rectification proceedings under Section 254 of the Act. The Tribunal has taken a very reasonable approach and despite the evasive and non- cooperative attitude of the assessee, another opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee keeping into consideration the quantum of additions made in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the present Miscellaneous Application is hereby dismissed. 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 06/05/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA P. SINHA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 06/05/2025 Tanmay, Sr. PS TRUE COPY M.A No.123/Ahd/2024 (in ITA No. 1033/Ahd/2019) Babubhai Punmaji Gehlot vs. ITO Asst. Year –2007-08 - 4– 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 1. Date of dictation 30.04.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 30.04.2025 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 05.05.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .05.2025 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 06.05.2025 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 06.05.2025 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 Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… "