HETALBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL,BHARUCH V. ITO, WARD 1(4), BHARUCH

ITA 717/SRT/2025

AI Insights

This case involves Hetalbhai Ramanbhai Patel, the appellant, who faced an assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for not filing his return of income for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The Income Tax Officer noted an unexplained investment of Rs. 34,65,000 in immovable property. The first appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed without a detailed examination on merits, leading to the second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found procedural lapses in the handling of the case and provided an opportunity for the assessee to present his case again, while also imposing a monetary cost for negligence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 823040 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY UKE
• Assessee Lawyers: HARDIK VORA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SURAT” BENCH, SURAT [Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad] BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 717/Srt/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Hetalbhai Ramanbhai Patel 19-20, Sardar Patel Society, Opposite J. P. Arts & Science College, Bharuch, Gujarat- 392001 बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), Bharuch ᭭थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : APXPP1013N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथŎ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Hardik Vora, AR ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement 22/12/2025 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 04.10.2024 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 in the proceeding under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 717/Srt/2025 [Hetalbhai Ramanbhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2008-09 - 2 – 2. There was a delay of 183 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reason for delay. It is submitted that the delay was for the reason that the Counsel of the assessee neither made any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) nor intimated the assessee about the passing of the appellate order. It is further submitted that the assessee is an illiterate person and not conversant with electronic mode of communication. Therefore, the order sent on Income Tax Portal could not be accessed by him. It was only after receipt of notice of penalty that the assessee came to know about the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter, the present appeal was filed. In the process, there was a delay of 183 days which was not intentional. Considering the explanation of the assessee, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2008-09. The case of the assessee was reopened on the information that the assessee had made investment of Rs.34,65,000/- in the purchase of an immovable property during the year. In the course of assessment, no compliance was made by the assessee and, therefore, the investment of Rs.34,65,000/- was treated as unexplained. The assessment was completed u/s.144 of the Act on 28.12.2015 at total income of Rs.34,65,000/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which was Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 717/Srt/2025 [Hetalbhai Ramanbhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2008-09 - 3 – 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: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming of the initiation reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without discussing grounds on merits. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without providing opportunity of being heard. enough 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 34,65,000/- as income from undisclosed sources. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 34,65,000/- as income from undisclosed sources without considering that such purchase was made out of agricultural income earned by the assessee. 6. It is therefore prayed that the above addition/disallowance made by the assessing officer may please be deleted. 7. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 6. Shri Hardik Vora, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that no compliance could be made before the Ld. CIT(A) who had dismissed the appeal of the assessee without examining the matter on merits. He, therefore, requested that another opportunity may be allowed to the assessee by setting aside the matter to the file Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 717/Srt/2025 [Hetalbhai Ramanbhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2008-09 - 4 – of the AO in order to explain the source of investment made in the immovable property. 7. Per contra, Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR had no objection if the matter was set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for allowing another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 8. We have considered the request of the assessee. We are not convinced with the explanation of the assessee regarding non- compliance before the lower authorities. 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 Assessing Officer had passed ex-parte order due to total non-compliance before him and the assessee had filed first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee should have been careful enough to ensure that proper compliance was made before the appellate authority. It was the duty of the assessee to watch his affairs before the AO and the CIT(A). The assessee was aware of the order passed by the AO and the pending appeal, still he had not exercised any care to enquire about the status of appeal and tried to shift the responsibility on his lawyer. The assessee was certainly negligent and, therefore, we deem it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) on the assessee which should be paid to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within a period of 15 days of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of cost, we deem it proper to set aside the matter to file Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 717/Srt/2025 [Hetalbhai Ramanbhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2008-09 - 5 – of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to allow another opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of investment in the immovable property which, before us, is stated to be out of agricultural income. The assessee too is directed to make compliance before the AO in the course of set aside proceeding and furnish the evidence in respect of source of investment in the immovable property and also the documents and clarification as required by the AO. In case, the assessee does not make any compliance, the Jurisdictional AO will be at liberty to pass the order on merits on the basis of materials available on record. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced on 22/12/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 22/12/2025 S. K. SINHA True Copy 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. By order/आदेश से, Deputy/Asstt. Registrar/DDO ITAT, Surat Printed from counselvise.com "