EKTA PETROLIUM,ANAND V. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4), VADODARA

ITA 1483/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ekta Petrolium, which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary issue was the addition of Rs. 78,79,000 as unexplained cash sales during the demonetisation period, which the Assessing Officer treated as unexplained. The assessee argued that the non-compliance in the earlier appeal was due to the fault of their counsel, which led to a delay of 235 days in filing the current appeal. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay insufficient but allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing a re-examination of the case by the CIT(A) under specific conditions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792061 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMESHWAR P. MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: HETVI SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

"THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1483/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ekta Petrolium, 157, Opp. Bus Stand, Anklav Road, Napad, Dist. Anand (Gujarat). [PAN – AAFFE 7196 N] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1)(4), Income Tax Office, Race Course Circle, Vadodara – 390 007. (Gujarat). (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Hetvi Shah, AR Revenue by Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.12.2025 O R D E R PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short “the CIT(A)”) dated 27.09.2024 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 in the proceeding under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. There was delay of 235 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reason for the delay. It is submitted that the appeal papers were handed over to the consultant for necessary compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the consultant neither complied before the Ld. CIT(A) nor informed the assessee about the order Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1483/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ekta Petrolium vs. ITO Page 2 of 5 passed by him. It was only when the penalty order under Section 271AAC of the Act was received, that the assessee came to know about the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, the assessee had approached another counsel and filed the present appeal. In the process, there was this delay of 235 days. It was submitted that the delay was not intentional. Considering the explanation of the assessee, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 02.11.2017 declaring Nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny for examining the cash deposits in the bank account made during the demonetisation period. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.78,79,000/- during the demonetisation period. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation regarding the source of cash deposits and he treated the cash deposits of Rs.78,79,000/- in the old denomination notes, as unexplained cash sales and accordingly made the addition. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2019 at total income of Rs.78,79,000/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: - Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1483/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ekta Petrolium vs. ITO Page 3 of 5 “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against law, equity & justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in levying tax invoking section 115BBE of the Act. 3. The assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. is void, illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made u/s.68 of the Act by the Ld. A.O when the impugned amount is already been offered to tax as sales. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made U/S 68 of the Act by the Ld. A.O. of Rs.78,79,000/- 6. The appellant Craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.” 6. Ms. Hetvi Shah, Ld. AR of the assessee, submitted that no compliance could be made before the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not adjudicated by him on merits. She explained that the non-compliance was due to the fault of the counsel, for which the assessee should not suffer. The Ld. AR, therefore, requested that another opportunity may be allowed to the assessee by setting aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. Per contra, Shri R P Meena, Ld. Sr. DR had no objection, if the matter was set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) for allowing another opportunity to the assessee. 8. We have considered the request of the assessee. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed as many as six opportunities to the assessee but no compliance was made before him on any of the occasion. The Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1483/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ekta Petrolium vs. ITO Page 4 of 5 assessee has submitted that no compliance in the appeal proceeding was due to the fault of the counsel. The assessee cannot escape by merely placing the blame on the counsel. It is a settled law that there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground. When the appeal was filed by the assessee, it should have been careful enough to enquire about the status of the pending appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was the duty of the assessee to watch its affairs before the CIT(A). The assessee was aware of the pending appeal, no care was exercised to enquire about the status of appeal and the assessee has only tried to shift the responsibility on its lawyer. The assessee was certainly negligent and its act was lethargic. We are not convinced with the explanation of the assessee regarding non-compliance before the appellate authority. We, therefore, direct the assessee to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- which should be deposited to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of cost, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to allow another opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits in the bank account and, thereafter, adjudicate the grounds taken in the first appeal on merits. The assessee is also directed to comply before the Ld. CIT(A) in the course of set aside proceeding and to bring on record the evidences to explain the cash deposits. The assessee is also directed to respond to the queries of the CIT(A) and furnish the documents and clarifications as required by him. In case the assessee does not make compliance in the course of set aside appeal proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) will have liberty to pass the order on merits, on the basis of the materials available on record. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1483/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ekta Petrolium vs. ITO Page 5 of 5 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 10th December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Ahmedabad, the 10th December, 2025 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) The PCIT (4) The CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order TRUE COPYE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "