NARENDRASINH MANUBHA ZALA,BHACHAU V. THE ITO WARD-4, GANDHIDHAM, (BHUJ-2), GANDHIDHAM

ITA 101/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Narendrasinh Manubha Zala against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which confirmed the addition of Rs. 26,50,000 as unexplained money deposited in the appellant's bank account during the demonetization period. The appeal was initially dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance by the appellant, who was unaware of the online proceedings. The Tribunal noted the lack of communication about the proceedings to the appellant and decided to give another opportunity for the appellant to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705864 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: D.M. RINDANI; LD
• Keywords: Set aside; Non compliance
• Section: 144; 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 101/RJT/2025 ( नधा\u000fरणवष\u000f / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Narendrasinh Manubha Zala Kariya Dham Bhat Pariya Vistar, Main Road, Bhachau - 370140 Vs. Income Tax Officer, wd – 4, 102, 1st floor, Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Nr. IFFCO Colony, Gandhidham-370201 \u0013थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AANPZ8118R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-Delhi, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), dated 25.03.2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer, u/s 143(3) of the Act, on 09.12.2019. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1 The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant ex-parte. Page | 2 ITA No. 101/Rjt/2025 (AY 2017-18) Narendrasinh M. Zala v. ITO 2.On merits, learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming the action of the ITO Ward-4, Gandhidhamin making addition of Rs. 26,50,000/- by way of unexplained money deposited in the bank account of Appellant during demonetization period. 3.The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal. 3. At the outset, that the appeal filed late by 259 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The crux of the application for delay is as under; “That all notices during the course of assessment proceedings were issued one mail address: \"[e-mail]\", which pertained to accountant of the Appellant. The said accountant neither communicated about the issuance of notices to the appellant nor to the tax consultant of the Appellant. Informed in Form 35 as \"[e-mail]\", except one notice, all two notices A were received on different e-mall ids. Also, on e-filing portal, e-mail id was changed to \"[e-mail]\", which belonged to tax consultant of the Appellant. That thereafter, the appellant did not receive order u/s 250 dated 25-03- 2024passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC on e-mail id given in the E- filing portal and hence was not aware about the passing of the said order. That thereafter when the tax consultant of the Appellant logged into E-filing portal sometime in January 2025, he found that order u/s 250 of the Act has already been passed on 25-03-2024. That thereafter, the Appellant was advised by his tax consultant to approach a tribunal tax practitioner in Rajkot and decide further course of action. That thereafter it took quite some time in the process to decide and appoint a tax counsel appearing before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Rajkot” 4. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has not have any knowledge about online proceeding. That the Ld. AR prayed for one more opportunity may kindly be given to the assessee to explain the case. 5. On the contrary, the Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue has not objected to the prayer of the Ld. AR. Page | 3 ITA No. 101/Rjt/2025 (AY 2017-18) Narendrasinh M. Zala v. ITO 6. We have heard both the parties. We note that delay of filing before this Tribunal was due to unawareness about online proceedings in the case. The appellant came to know about the order of Ld. CIT(A) when the assessee enquired about the proceedings of the case, therefore, the tax consultant who logged into E-mail portal in January - 2025. In the interest of justice, we take a judicious view that we condoned the delay in filing appeal by 259 days. 7. Brief facts of the case that The assessee has filed original return of income on 09.11.2017 declaring total taxable income of Rs.2,71,950/-. This case was subsequently selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 22.09.2018 and duly served upon the assessee. In absence of any compliance, this office has no option but to complete the assessment on the basis of details available on record. On perusal of bank statement of account no. 037010003820 maintained with Dena Bank, it is noticed that the assessee has made total cash deposit of Rs. 2. 26,50,000/- during the demonetization period. Further, it is also noticed that the assessee has shown commission income during the year and his gross commission receipt of Rs. 4,72,500/-. The deposit in bank account did not justify with his gross receipt during the year. In absence of any documentary support, the source of cash deposits can not be treated as explained. Therefore, vide letter dtd. 29.11.2019, the assessee was show caused why the cash deposit of Rs. 26,50,000/- should not be treated as unexplained deposits in bank account and added to his total income. In response, no reply has been received by this office. Therefore, an addition of Rs. 26,50,000/- is made as unexplained money. Page | 4 ITA No. 101/Rjt/2025 (AY 2017-18) Narendrasinh M. Zala v. ITO 8. That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. AO, vide dated 09.12.2019. In the office of the Ld. CIT(A), Rajkot. The appeal was dismissed with following observation: “The averments of the Assessing Officer and submission of the appellant have been considered carefully. The order of assessment was passed by the Assessing Officer under Sec. 144 based on the details of cash deposits available in the bank statement. Other than the bank statement, the appellant did not appear before the Assessing Officer and did not choose to file documentary evidence to substantiate the source for the cash deposit. In view of the above, Assessing Officer treated the sum of Rs.26,50,000 as unexplained income under Sec.69A of the act. At the time of appellate proceedings, appellant did not file any evidence to prove the source for cash deposit. Further the grounds of appeal are generic and there were no other details other than Form 35 and assessment order. In view of the above facts and in the absence of any evidence I am constrained to uphold the addition made by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 26,50,000. This ground is \"Dismissed\". In the result, the appeal is \"Dismissed\"” 9. That the assessee filed an appeal against the impugned order dated 25.03.2024 before the Tribunal. 10. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee stated that the assessee was unaware about the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the assessee could not comply with the notice. The Ld. AR of the assessee prayed for one more opportunity should be given to the assessee. 11. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and not objected to the prayer of the Ld. AR. 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the documents available on record. We note that various notices have been issued on one email-id which is belongs to the tax consultant, who did not inform to the assessee about online proceedings, therefore, there was no compliance to the notice by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) disposed off the appeal by an ex-parte order Page | 5 ITA No. 101/Rjt/2025 (AY 2017-18) Narendrasinh M. Zala v. ITO without adjudication on merit. We note that the main reason for non compliance was that the assessee was unaware about the online proceedings of the case. Thereafter, we are of the view that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to present his case before the Lower Authority. We note that the Ld. AO has also passed an order u/s. 143(3) of the Act. However, there was no compliance of notices issued by the Ld. AO, after considering above facts and circumstances, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merit after giving due opportunity to the assessee of being heard. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30 -06-2025. Sd/- Sd/- (A. L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot \u001bदनांक/ Date: 30/06/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot "