KUVARGIRI HIRAGIRI GOSAI,JUNAGADH V. THE ITO, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

ITA 2120/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Kuvar Giri Hiragiri Gosai against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2012-13. The primary grievances include the ex-parte nature of the appellate order, unjustified reopening of the assessment under section 147, and confirmation of addition of Rs.20,00,000 under section 69A related to cash deposits. The assessee also contested the initiation of various penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b), and 271F of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision to condone the delay in filing the appeal allowed the case to be heard on its substantive issues rather than procedural technicalities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 828500 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Ahmedabad
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P.B. PARMAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Principle of natural justice; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 147; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2120/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Kuvar Giri Hiragiri Gosai Panch Dash Nam Juna Akhada Thana Pati Kuvar Bharthi Guru Shri Indra Bharthi Junagadh – 362 001 [PAN: AFJPG 9919 G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (2), Bhavnagar – 364 002 (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P.B. Parmar, AR Respondent by: -None- Date of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] relating to the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “ 1.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in passing ex-parte order which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, action of reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act is not justified. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2120/Ahd/2025 Kuvargiri Hiragiri Gosai vs. ITO AY : 2012-13 2 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in confirming addition of Rs.20,00,000/-made under section 69A of the Act in respect of cash deposits in the bank account. 4. Both, AO & CIT(A), have erred in passing the impugned orders without appreciating facts of the case, submissions of properly the assessee and documentary evidences available on record in the correct perspective. Such an act is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming levy of interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271F of the Act.” 3. The appeal is delayed by 72 days. An Affidavit dated 08/01/2026 in support of condonation of delay has been filed. wherein, it has been deposed by the assessee that his Tax Consultant had assigned the task of preparing and filling the appeal before the Tribunal, but could not file the appeal in time due to Diwali vacation. Non-filing of the appeal was on account of reasons behind assessee’s control and prayed to condone the delay and the appeal may be decided on merits. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed return of income for the year under consideration though the assessee had made cash deposit in his Printed from counselvise.com "