CHANDUBHA MANUBHA VADHER,JAMNAGAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1), JAMNAGAR

ITA 84/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Chandubha Manubha Vadher, the appellant, who contested the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment year 2014-15. The primary contention was the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) on procedural grounds, specifically non-compliance with mandatory e-filing requirements as prescribed by the CBDT. The appellant argued that the dismissal was without consideration of the merits and was unaware of the online proceedings due to medical treatments during the relevant period. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not adequately considered the appellant's health issues and the lack of proper service of notice, leading to a decision to remand the case for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717312 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVEEN VERMA; LD
• Assessee Lawyers: CHETAN AGARWAL; LD
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 84/RJT/2025 (Ǔनधा[रणवष[ / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Chandubha Manubha Vadher Ranjeet Nagar, Lalpur Bypass Chokdi, Jamnagar – 361001 Vs. Income Tax Officer, wd – 3(1), Income Tax Office, Gulabnagar Road, Jamnagar – 361001 ˕ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAMPV7213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 23/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), dated 26.06.2023, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer, u/s. 143(3) of the Act, on 26.12.2016. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1) Learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in dismissing appeal on the ground that appeal was not filed online and without admitting and deciding on merits. 3. At the outset, that the appeal filed late by 524 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The relevant part of application for delay is as under; Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No. 84/Rjt/2025 (AY 2014-15) Chandubha Manubha Vadher v. ITO “Your Honour may kindly appreciate that Ld. CIT(A) has passed order on 26.06.2923, which was served on 26.06.2023 and appeal before hon’ble ITAT, Rajkot bench was filed on 30.01.2025, hence there was delay of 524 days. Your Honor may kindly appreciate that the assessee was not aware of passing online appeal order by the Ld. CIT(A) and also engaged in medical treatment of heart and eye. The appeal was filed immediately as soon as the appellant gained knowledge of passing online order on receipt of call from department for payment of demand.” 3.1. Ld. A.R. submitted that delay is due to that the assessee was under the immediate medical treatment of heart and eyes. The delay caused due to genuine and bona fide reasons and circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. AR requested that the delay may kindly be condoned. On the contrary, the Ld. DR of the revenue has not opposed the prayer of the assessee. 3.2 We note that delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal was due to bona-fide reasons that the assessee was under the medical treatment of heart and eyes, and also the assessee do not have knowledge about the online proceedings of the cases going on with Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reason explained, we find that delay is not deliberate nor due to negligence. In the interest of justice, we take a judicious view and we condoned the delay in filing appeal by 524 days, and the appeal heard on merit. 4. Brief facts of the case that the appellant is an individual assessed to income tax. Return of Income was e-filed on 20.07.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 3,95,065/-. Thereafter case was selected for scrutiny notice u/s. 143(2) and various details were called upon. The Appellant had filed all details, assessment was completed with following observation- SI. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Addition on account of Cash Deposit into various Bank Accounts 90,68,000 Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No. 84/Rjt/2025 (AY 2014-15) Chandubha Manubha Vadher v. ITO 2. Addition U/s. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) for difference in purchase value 11,23,210 3. Addition on account of investment in immovable property 6,04,72,790 5. That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. AO, vide order dated 26.12.2016, in the office of the Ld. CIT(A), Rajkot. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal with following remark: “CBDT has prescribed mandatory e-filing of appeals vide notification no, So 637(E) [No. 11/2016 9F No. 149/150/2015-TPL)], dated 01.03.2106 which made compulsory e-filing of appeals. Since assessee has not made any effort to explain why manual appeal should not be dismissed despite of issuing notice on this issue on 12.07.2021 and subsequent notices mentioned above, the appeal beign not e- filed is liable to treated as invalid ab initio as per sec. 249(1) of the I.T.Act. accordingly, appeal is dismissed.” 6. That the assessee filed an appeal against the impugned order dated 26.12.2016 before the Tribunal. 7. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee was going through the medical treatment of eye and heart and also the assessee not having knowledge of online proceedings of the case, the assessee came to know about the online order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee immediately take necessary step and filed an appeal before this Tribunal. That the Ld. AR prayed for one more opportunity may kindly be given to the assessee to explain the case before the Ld. AO. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and not objected to the prayer of the Ld. AR. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the documents available on record. We note that the assessee has not made the compliance with the notices for hearing issued by the Ld. CIT(A). the LD. CIT()A observe d that the assessee not interested in purusing the appeal. The order is silent on service Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No. 84/Rjt/2025 (AY 2014-15) Chandubha Manubha Vadher v. ITO of notice. On the other hand the AO was categorically informed about critical health situation of appellant. Ld. AO has also failed to appreciate the fact entire cash deposit into bank account cannot be considered as income but it is only income element out of said deposit which can be brought to tax. Furthermore, while making addition for cash deposit into bank account, Ld. AD has also mistaken in not considering cash withdrawal made from respective banks during the year. Ld. AO has also failed to properly appreciate the facts of the case and erred in applying provision of Section 56(viii)(b) to the present case. Ld. AO has also greatly mistaken in not accepting submission of the appellant that entire investment made in subject immovable properties were made in joint ownership and there were other 27 co-buyers to those properties. Ld. AO has simply disregarded Samjuti Karar entered by the appellant on petty clerical issues and failed to properly appreciate facts of the transaction. It may be noted that Ld. AO has, merely on the basis of his belief and imagination, simply disbelieved claim of appellant of joint purchase of properties without taking any step to verify claim of appellant. 10. We noted that assessment made without appreciating proper facts of case and order passed is completely arbitrary, mechanical, without application of mind and lacks factual and legal support. The Ld. AO has completed assessment without affording sufficient opportunity to the appellant and without adjudicating to principle of natural justice. 11. We note that the assessee was not aware about the online proceedings before the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), because the assessee going through the medical treatment of eye and heart, (medical reports are placed on record). We note that the notices is silent upon the service upon the assessee, in the interest of justice, therefore, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to produced/submit the relevant documents Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA No. 84/Rjt/2025 (AY 2014-15) Chandubha Manubha Vadher v. ITO before the Lower Authority. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO, for fresh adjudication and direct to the assessee to submit all the relevant details/ documents/ evidence, if any required by the Ld. AO for disposed off the case. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11-08-2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A. L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot (True Copy) Ǒदनांक/ Date: 11 /08/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot Printed from counselvise.com "