MIKAL BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL,PETLAD V. I.T.O WARD 1(3)(1), PETLAD, PETLAD

ITA 473/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mikal Bhupendrabhai Patel, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding additions made to his income for the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The additions were based on unexplained cash deposits in his bank account, which the assessee failed to substantiate despite multiple opportunities. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution and upheld the additions on merits. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal primarily due to the inordinate delay in filing without sufficient cause and the assessee's lack of serious engagement in the appellate process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778823 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1), Motorola Inc. v. DCIT (96 TTJ 1)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIJIT
• Assessee Lawyers: JAINISH PARIKH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause; Peak credit; Onus to prove; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 271(1)(c); 139

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.473&474/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Mikal Bhupendrabhai Patel, Zanda Chowk At Dharmaj, Ta Petlad, Dist: Anand, Dharmaj, Gujarat-388450 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad [PAN No.AQSPP9470H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Jainish Parikh, CA Respondent by: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.10.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals have been filed by the Assessee 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 vide order dated 13.02.2024 passed for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 473/Ahd/2025 (A.Y. 2011-12) “1. The assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority u/s 250 is bad in law and deserved to be uncalled for. 2. The Assessing Officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority has erred in law and on facts in making and confirming respectively the addition of Rs. 53,15,500/-. The same deserves to be deleted. Without prejudice to above the benefit of peak credit should given if addition is confirmed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 473&474/Ahd/2025 Mikal Bhupendrabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Years–2011-12 & 2012-13 - 2– 3. The appellant craves to reserve his right to add, alter, amend, or delete any ground of appeal during the course of hearing.” ITA No. 474/Ahd/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) “1. The assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority u/s 250 is bad in law and deserved to be uncalled for. 2. The assessing officer has erred in law and on facts in making the addition on account unexplained cash deposit amounting to Rs. 89,57,860/-. The same deserves to be deleted. Without prejudice to above the benefit of peak credit should given if addition if confirmed. 3. The appellant craves to reserve his right to add, alter, amend, or delete any ground of appeal during the course of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed any return of income for the relevant Assessment Year 2011-12 as required under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act). Based on information available with the Department that the assessee had deposited cash exceeding Rs. 10,00,000/- in his IndusInd Bank account during the Financial Year 2010- 11, the Assessing Officer reopened the case under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148 dated 27.03.2018, duly served upon the assessee. Despite several statutory notices and reminders, including notices issued under sections 142(1), 271(1)(b), and final show-cause notice dated 02.11.2018, the assessee failed to file any return of income or furnish any details or explanation regarding the source of the cash deposits. In the absence of compliance, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act. On the basis of information and material available on record, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits of Rs. 17,16,245/- and other credit entries aggregating to Rs. 28,10,000/- in the IndusInd Bank account as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added the total sum of Rs. 53,15,500/- to the total Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 473&474/Ahd/2025 Mikal Bhupendrabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Years–2011-12 & 2012-13 - 3– income of the assessee. The total assessed income was thus determined at Rs. 53,15,500/- from undisclosed sources. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated, and interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D was charged as applicable. 4. In appeal, the assessee filed the appeal online on 18.12.2018 before the CIT(Appeals). The first notice of hearing under section 250 was issued on 30.12.2020 fixing the hearing on 14.01.2021, followed by subsequent notices dated 26.12.2023 and 03.02.2024. However, despite several opportunities, the assessee did not appear, seek adjournment, or file any written submissions or evidence to contest the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) observed that the burden of proof lies upon the appellant to substantiate his claim and to disprove the findings of the Assessing Officer, but the assessee failed to do so. It was held that the appellant’s continued non- compliance and non-attendance indicated lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Relying on the principle that law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of non-prosecution. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) also adjudicated the matter on merits and upheld the addition of Rs. 53,15,500/- made under section 69A, observing that the assessee neither explained the source of the deposits nor produced any evidence either during assessment or appellate proceedings. The claim made in the statement of facts that the deposits were from known sources remained unsupported by any documentary proof. Therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer was sustained. The ground regarding the charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was held to be consequential and mandatory in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 473&474/Ahd/2025 Mikal Bhupendrabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Years–2011-12 & 2012-13 - 4– Supreme Court in CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) and the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Special Bench in Motorola Inc. v. DCIT (96 TTJ 1). The ground challenging initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) was also dismissed as being consequential. The remaining grounds being general in nature were treated as dismissed. Accordingly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in entirety. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. We have carefully considered the material available on record. At the outset, it is noted that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 304 days. No application for condonation of delay has been filed along with any supporting Affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. In the absence of any plausible or reasonable cause being shown by the assessee for such an inordinate delay, we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing of the present appeal. The law in this regard is well settled that sufficient cause for delay must be explained with bona fide reasons, and mere inaction, negligence, or indifference cannot be accepted as justification for condonation. Since no such cause has been demonstrated, the delay of 304 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. Further, we note that there has been consistent and deliberate non-compliance by the assessee not only before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but also before us. Despite several opportunities of hearing afforded by this Tribunal, the assessee has failed to cause appearance or to make any effective representation to argue the matter. The record reveals that the assessee has been seeking adjournments on multiple occasions without showing any Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 473&474/Ahd/2025 Mikal Bhupendrabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Years–2011-12 & 2012-13 - 5– inclination to pursue the appeal on merits. Such conduct clearly indicates that the assessee is not serious in prosecuting the appeal. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we find no justification to condone the delay of 304 days in filing of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal being time barred is dismissed in limine. Even otherwise, considering the continuous non- compliance and lack of cooperation on part of the assessee before all the authorities including this Tribunal, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal any further. 6. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 17/10/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 17/10/2025 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 Printed from counselvise.com "