MEHULKUMAR SANATKUMAR GANDHI,MEHSANA V. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

ITA 22/AHD/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Mehulkumar Sanatkumar Gandhi, the appellant, who contested an appellate order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which refused to condone a delay of 187 days in filing an appeal against an assessment order. The assessment order had treated certain purchases as bogus, leading to a significant tax addition. The appellant argued that the delay was due to medical issues and that he was not directly involved in the business operations, which were managed by another individual. The Tribunal found merit in providing another opportunity for the appellant to present his case, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837813 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Corroborative evidences; Bogus purchase; Principle of natural justice; Bogus
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Mehulkumar Sanatkumar Gandhi 6 Ayodhyanagar Society, Opp. Ruturaj Flats, T.B. Hospital Road, Mehsana-384002, Gujarat PAN: BAJPG4996B (Appellant) Vs The ITO, Ward-1 Mehsana (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Parth Mehta, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 09-02-2026 Date of pronouncement : 19-02-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against appellate order dated 07-11-2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), refusing to condone the delay of 187 days in fling appeal before him arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ITA No: 22/Ahd/2026 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 22/Ahd/2026 A.Y. 2021-22 Page No Mehulkumar Sanatkumar Gandhi vs. ITO 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual filed his Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2021-22 on 18-01-2022 declaring total income of Rs.5,97,090/-. The return was taken for scrutiny assessment and on verification of records, it is found that the GST numbers of all the parties from whom purchases made by the assessee were cancelled has seen/found from the GST portal. Further HSN code namely nature of Goods and services rendered by the parties are different from the invoices/E-way bills submitted by the assessee, hence requested to explain the same. 3. In reply vide letter dated 12-09-2022, the assessee stated that he started business of wholesale trading of industrial and pharmaceutical chemicals, while in the previous financial year, he was engaged in the business of wholesale trading of cloths. The A.O. was not satisfied with the above reply of the assessee and therefore issued summons u/s. 133(6) to the 12 parties, out of which four parties only registered with the e-filing portal of Income Tax Department. However no parties replied to the summons issued u/s. 133(6), therefore the assessing officer treated the purchases made by the assessee from the above parties as bogus purchase and made addition of Rs.6,34,81,280/- and demanded tax thereon. 4. Aggrieved against the same, assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 187 days. A detailed Notarized Affidavit was Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 22/Ahd/2026 A.Y. 2021-22 Page No Mehulkumar Sanatkumar Gandhi vs. ITO 3 also filed stating that medical illness and the business operations were carried out by one Shri Hitesh Vishnubhai Patel in the name and style of Padmavati Enterprises. Thus the assessee only a name lender and Shri Hitesh Vishnubhai Patel operated the bank accounts and made the bogus purchases against which the criminal complaint is lodged with the Police Authorities and recently his statement was recorded and waiting for the FIR to be registered by the Police Authorities. Ld. CIT(A) considered the above submissions of the assessee and given opportunity of hearing from 01-09-2023 to 10-10-2025 and then found “no sufficient cause” in filing the above appeal with the delay of 187 days, thereby dismissed the appeal in limine. 5. Aggrieved against the appellate order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. That on facts, the learned CIT has erred in not granting condonation of delay in filing of appeal on medical grounds which were duly explained along with supporting evidences. 2. That on facts, the learned CIT has erred by observing that appellant has not filed detailed reasons for delay in filing of appeal by 187 days whereas appellant had filed Affidavit sworn in before Notary public explaining the reasons for delay. 3. That on facts, the learned CIT has erred by observing that \"during appellate proceedings also the appellant had not filed detailed explanation for such a huge delay in filing of appeal..\" whereas, appellant had filed Affidavit explaining the cause for delay (Para 12 to 14) along with all the medical examination records in order to prove the cause for delay vide response dated. 4. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT ought to have adopted a humane and as considerate approach Appellant has nothing to gain from delaying appellate proceedings & Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. 5. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT ought to have adrnitted appeal and decided the appeal on merits. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 22/Ahd/2026 A.Y. 2021-22 Page No Mehulkumar Sanatkumar Gandhi vs. ITO 4 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal. 6. We have considered the submissions of the assessee and in the interest of Principle of Natural Justice and considering the peculiar features in the facts of the case, we deem it fit to set-aside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee, so as the assessee to produce and substantiate the FIR filed by the Police Authorities in the above case and decide the issue on merits of the case by giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal field by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 19-02-2026 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) VICE PRESIDENT True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 19/02/2026 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद Printed from counselvise.com "