DASHRATHBHAI MADHUBHAI JADAV,AHMEDABAD V. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 653/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Dashrathbhai Madhubhai Jadav, an agriculturist, who did not file a return of income for the assessment year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer, based on high-value transactions, issued a notice under section 148, leading to an ex-parte assessment under section 144, resulting in significant additions to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard, considering his age and lack of technical familiarity, and thus restored the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633255 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P RASTOGI
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL RANPURA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained investment; TDS; Procedural lapse
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद Ɋायपीठ “ B”, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ŵी टी.आर. सेİȺल क ुमार, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ। ] ] BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /ITA No. 653/Ahd/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dashrathbhai Madhubhai Jadav, At Post Khoraj Gam, Taluka Sanand, Ahmedabad-380001. (Gujarat) बनाम/ v/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad. ̾थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AOTPJ7754H अपीलाथŎ/ (Appellant) Ů̝ यथŎ/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, AR Revenue by : Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 10/06/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: ] ] This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], for the Assessment Year 2015–16, arising from the assessment order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi ITA No.653/Ahd/2025 Dashrathbhai M Jadav vs.ITO A.Y 2015-16 2 [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer / AO”] under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act. Brief Facts of the Case 2. The assessee is an individual and agriculturist by occupation. For the assessment year under consideration, no return of income was filed. Based on certain high-value financial transactions appearing in AIR/CIB/TDS databases for F.Y. 2014–15, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Consequently, notice under section 148 was issued on 31.03.2022. Despite issue of notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2), there was no compliance from the assessee. The AO proceeded to complete the assessment ex-parte under section 144. The AO, on the basis of information gathered from various sources, made the following additions to the income of the assessee: S.No Nature of Addition Section Amount (Rs.) 1 Cash deposits in bank accounts 69A 36,02,300/- 2 Time deposits in FDRs 69 18,00,000/- 3 Interest income 56 2,17,201/- 4 Investment in immovable property 69 6,69,72,000/- Total Assessed Income 7,25,91,501/- 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, with a delay of 98 days. The CIT(A), after considering the explanation, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication. However, the CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal ex parte, observing that the appellant failed to respond to the communication window opened on 01.08.2023, as well as the ITA No.653/Ahd/2025 Dashrathbhai M Jadav vs.ITO A.Y 2015-16 3 final hearing notice dated 04.10.2024 requiring submissions by 21.10.2024. The CIT(A) held that no documentary evidence had been furnished, and relying on decisions in CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del)] and CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee [(1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC)], dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in confirming addition made by the AO of Rs. 36,02,300/- on the alleged ground that the appellant failed to explain source of cash deposited of Rs. 36,02,300/- in the bank account held with different banks along with supporting evidence. The addition confirmed is unjustified and uncalled for, which may kindly be deleted. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in confirming addition made by the AO of Rs. 18,00,000/- being alleged unexplained investment in fixed deposits with Bombay Mercentile Co-op. Bank and Canara Bank on the alleged ground that appellant failed to explain source of investment in fixed deposit along with supporting evidence. The addition confirmed is unjustified and uncalled for, which may kindly be deleted. 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in confirming addition made by the AO of Rs. 2,17,201/- being interest income on the alleged ground that the same has not been offered to tax. The addition confirmed is unjustified and uncalled for, which may kindly be deleted. 4. The Id. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in confirming addition made by the AO of Rs. 6,69,72,000/- being alleged investment made in immovable property on the alleged ground that the appellant failed to explain source of investment in immovable along with supporting evidence. The addition confirmed is unjustified and uncalled for, which may kindly be deleted. 5. Your Honour's appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter, or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal. 6. The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. ITA No.653/Ahd/2025 Dashrathbhai M Jadav vs.ITO A.Y 2015-16 4 7. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the \"CIT(A)\"] erred on facts as also in law in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without allowing adequate opportunity of being heard. 8. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the \"CIT(A)\"] erred in deciding the ground of appeal related to validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961. That on facts as also in law, initiation of action u/s. 147 of the Act is invalid. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the assessee reiterated the written submissions filed before the CIT(A), highlighting that the assessment in the present case was completed ex-parte without proper service or effective opportunity of hearing. It was submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen, approximately 64 years old, engaged in agriculture and deriving income from agricultural operations and minor interest income from savings and fixed deposits. The assessee contended that the total income for the relevant assessment year (A.Y. 2015– 16) was below the taxable threshold, and therefore, he had bona fide not filed the return of income under the belief that he was not liable to tax. The AR further contended that the notices issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were only served through the registered email linked to the e-filing portal, which the assessee was not accustomed to accessing regularly due to his background and age. Consequently, the proceedings were completed without his participation, and the assessment order came to his notice only belatedly. He also submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not intentional but due to the aforementioned circumstances and requested that the additions made be deleted on merits. ITA No.653/Ahd/2025 Dashrathbhai M Jadav vs.ITO A.Y 2015-16 5 6. It was further contended that the non-filing of submissions before the CIT(A) occurred due to a technical error in the portal, as evidenced by a screenshot of the error page (\"Page Not Found\") placed on record. Despite efforts to upload submissions in response to the hearing notice dated 04.10.2024 (DIN: 1069375702(1)), the appellant was unable to file any response. The AR further pointed out that the assessee has also filed a duly notarised affidavit dated 07.07.2023 before CIT(A) explaining the circumstances for non-compliance, lack of awareness of the assessment order served through email, and the inadvertent delay in filing the appeal. 7. The learned AR prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard. 8. The learned Departmental Representative (DR), on instructions, did not object to the restoration of the matter to the file of the AO. 9. We have carefully perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), the grounds of appeal, and the submissions of the AR and DR. The assessment has been framed ex parte under section 144, and the appeal before the CIT(A) was also dismissed ex parte for non-compliance. However, we find that the assessee has adequately explained the reasons for his non-compliance, both during the assessment as well as during the first appellate proceedings. The affidavit placed on record confirms the appellant’s age, background, and non-technical orientation, and explains that the assessment order served via email remained unnoticed. The ITA No.653/Ahd/2025 Dashrathbhai M Jadav vs.ITO A.Y 2015-16 6 screenshot of the portal error message (\"Page Not Found\"), which occurred during the window for filing submissions before the CIT(A), supports the appellant’s contention of genuine technical difficulty. It is settled law that where a party has not been afforded a proper opportunity of being heard due to technical or procedural lapses, justice demands that the matter be restored for de novo consideration. 10. In view of the above, and considering that the DR has not objected to restoration, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the CIT(A), as well as the ex parte assessment framed under section 147 r.w.s. 144, and restore the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for framing a fresh assessment after affording adequate and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th June, 2025 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad, Dated 10/06/2025 Manish, Sr. PS ITA No.653/Ahd/2025 Dashrathbhai M Jadav vs.ITO A.Y 2015-16 7 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(Exemption)-Ahmedabad 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाडŊ फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सȑािपत Ůित //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad "