DAHYABHAI GANESHBHAI KUGASIYA,IQBALGADH V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-1, PALANPURE, PALANPUR

ITA 2086/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The appeals involve two different assessees, Agrawal Rajeshkumar Babulal HUF and Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai Kugasiya, contesting the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2015-16, 2017-18, and 2018-19. The primary issues in the appeals include the upholding of various additions and disallowances by the CIT(A), such as income reported in Form 26AS, disallowances under sections 40(a)(ia), 14A, 43B of the Income Tax Act, and additions related to prior period expenses. The CIT(A) had dismissed some appeals ex-parte and remitted others back to the Assessing Officer without decision. The Tribunal found that the assessees were not adequately represented and had not been aware of the passing of the online appeal orders, leading to the condonation of delay in filing the appeals and restoration of the cases to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 835174 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALPESH PARMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: CHETAN AGARWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; FORM 26AS

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद \u0011ायपीठ “ए“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD \u0016ी संजय गग\u001b, \u0011ाियक सद एवं अ पूणा\u001b गु!ा, लेखा सद क े सम%। ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member 1. आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.2076/Ahd/2024 – Asst.Year 2015-16 2. आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.2085/Ahd/2024 – Asst.Year 2017-18 3. आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.2086/Ahd/2024 – Asst.Year 2018-19 1. Agrawal Rajeshkumar Babulal HUF Prop. Shri Mahavir Trading Co. Iqbalgadh, Amirgadh Banaskantha – 385 130 PAN; AACHA 5546 F 2-3.Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai Kugasiya, Plot No.23 Prop. Harsiddhi Corporation Market Yard Iqbalgadh, Amirgadh Palanpur – 385 001 PAN: AVNPK 5629 H बनाम / v/s. 1. The Dy. CIT Circle, Gandhinagaar Income Tax Office Udhyog Bhavan, Gandhinagar 382 011 2-3.The Asst4.CIT Circle, Palanpur Income Tax Office Palanpur – 385 001 (अपीलाथ(/ Appellants) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 03/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned appeals have been preferred by two different assessees against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 16/02/2024 in the case of Agrawal Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.2076, 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2024 Agrawal Rajeshkumar Babulal HUF (2076 )& Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai Kugasiya (2085 & 2086) vs. DCIT-ACIT Asst. Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively 2 Rajeshkumar Babulal HUF for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 and dated 11/06/2024 in the case of Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai Kugasiya for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19. These appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. In ITA No.2076/Ahd/2024 for AY 2015-16 (in the case of Agrawal Rajeshkumar Babulal HUF) 2. The assessee, in this appeal, has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding addition of Rs. 15,05,313/-on account of income reported in Form 26AS. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in remitting back the addition of Rs. 4,01,81,634 to Ld.AO without deciding the same. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding disallowance of Rs. 11,85,978 u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding addition of Rs.2,88,589 made by the Ld.AO u/s.14A of the Act. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding disallowance of Rs.21,72,779 made by the Ld.AO u/s.43B of the Act. 6. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding addition of Rs.1,00,69,987 made by the Ld.AO on account of prior period expenses.” In ITA Nos.2085 & 2086/Ahd/2024 (in the case of Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai Kugasiya) 3. The assessee, in these appeals, have taken common grounds of appeal: ”1. The CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in dismissing appeal ex-parte. 2. The CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding additions made in the course of assessment without deciding the same on merits.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.2076, 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2024 Agrawal Rajeshkumar Babulal HUF (2076 )& Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai Kugasiya (2085 & 2086) vs. DCIT-ACIT Asst. Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively 3 3. These appeals are time-barred by 223 days (in the case of Agrawal Rajeshkumar Babuilal HUF) and 101 days (in the case of Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai Kugasia in each appeal). Separate applications for condonation of delay in filing these appeals have been filed by the assessees, wherein, it has been deposed that the assessee(s) was not aware of passing of online appeal order(s) by the Ld. CIT(A). That only on receipt of SMS/Call from Department for payment of demand the assessee verified the portal and, accordingly, gained knowledge of passing of the final appeal order. The Ld. Counsel for the assessees has submitted that the assessees have a fair cases on merits. He has further submitted that the non-representation before the ld. CIT(A) was not intentional and further the delay in filing the present appeal(s) has occurred due to circumstances, which were beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessees has submitted that even there was no proper representation before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessees has requested that the assessees may be given an opportunity to present their cases before the Ld. AO. 4. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 5. Considering the aforesaid submissions, in our view, the interests of justice will be well-served if the assessees be given an opportunity to present their cases before the Ld. CIT(A), however, subject to imposition of some reasonable costs. The delay in filing the present appeals is therefore condoned. The impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) are, accordingly, set aside and the cases are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide these appeals of the assessees on merits, after giving adequate Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.2076, 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2024 Agrawal Rajeshkumar Babulal HUF (2076 )& Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai Kugasiya (2085 & 2086) vs. DCIT-ACIT Asst. Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively 4 opportunity of hearing to the assessees to present their cases, however, subject to payment of a cost of Rs.5,000/- in each case, to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The assessees will produce the receipts of such deposits before the CIT(A). Subject to fulfilment of the above condition, the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) are set aside and the cases are restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the matter on merits. Needless to say, that the Ld.CIT(A) will give proper and adequate opportunity to the assessees to present their cases. 6. With the above observations, all the three appeals of the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09 /02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta ) Accountant Member ( Sanjay Garg) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 09/02/2026 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS आदेश की #ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स%ािपत #ित //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad 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 , अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. 6. गाड. फाईल / Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "