KHATRI HUNDHARAJ HOTCHAND HUF,PALANPUR V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PALANPUR, PALANPUR

ITA 156/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Khatri Hundharaj Hotchand-HUF, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on the grounds of limitation, specifically a delay of 246 days in filing the appeal, without addressing the merits of the case. The assessee had previously faced an ex-parte assessment due to non-compliance with online proceedings, leading to an addition of Rs. 27,92,350 as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, during the demonetization period. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the merits of the case nor the evidence provided by the assessee, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473681 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N. J. VYAS
• Assessee Lawyers: CHETAN AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148; 143(1); 69A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 156/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Khatri Hundharaj Hotchand-HUF Shivaji Market Amir Road, Panchratna Market Palanpur, Gujarat-385001 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palanpur [PAN No.AAHHK9730L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Chetan Agrawal, A.R. Respondent by : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 02.04.2025 O R D E R The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 26.12.2024 for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. Learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in dismissing appeal on the ground of limitation and not condoning delay of 246 days without deciding on merits.” 3. The return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 was filed by the assessee on 01.11.2017 which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. As per the information available with the Revenue Department, the assessee made huge cash transactions with the bank in respect of depositing the cash of Rs. 27,92,350/- in the Current Account of Dena Bank during the ITA No. 156/Ahd/2025 Khatri Hundharaj Hotchand HUF vs. ITO Asst. Year–2017-18 - 2 - demonetization period. Accordingly, the case was reopened and statutory notices were issued. Since the assessee has not filed any reply/detail in respect of notice under Section 148 of the Act, the AO made addition of Rs. 27,92,350/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and the tax is calculated as per the provision of Section 115BBE of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessment order as well as the order of the CIT(A) is ex-parte and the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay which is ony 246 days. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee was not aware of online assessment proceedings and therefore, there was no compliance resulting in ex-parte assessment and addition. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the AO for proper adjudication of the issues. 6. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal only on the ground of delay in filing the appeal and has not commented anything on the merits of the case. Besides this the assessee’s evidence which was filed by the assessee was not taken on record. Therefore, it will be appropriated to remand back this matter to ITA No. 156/Ahd/2025 Khatri Hundharaj Hotchand HUF vs. ITO Asst. Year–2017-18 - 3 - the file of the AO for proper adjudication of the issues on merits. The assessee be given an opportunity of hearing with following principles of natural justice. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 02/04/2025 Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 02/04/2025 TANMAY, Sr. PS 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. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 01.04.2025 2. Date on which the type draft is placed before the Dictating Member 01.04.2025 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .04.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .04.2025 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 02.04.2025 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 02.04.2025 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order…………………………………… "