RAYMALBHAI GOKALBHAI PATEL,BANASKANTHA V. THE ITO, WARD-1, PALANPUR

ITA 286/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Raymalbhai Gokalbhai Patel, an illiterate farmer from a remote village, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) upholding an addition of Rs.1,16,97,500 to his income for the Assessment Year 2017-18, claimed to be unexplained income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that he was unaware of the notices due to his illiteracy and the failure of his tax consultant to inform him, leading to an ex-parte assessment. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, noting the procedural lapses and the need for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712804 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2025
• 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: UDAY KRISHANRAO KAKNE
• Assessee Lawyers: S.N. DIVATIA; SAMIR VORA; ARS
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद \u0011ायपीठ “सी“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD \u0016ी संजय गग\u001a, \u0011ाियक सद\u001b एवं \u0016ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद\u001b क े सम!। ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.286/Ahd/2025 िनधा \u000fरण वष\u000f /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Raymalbhai Gokalbhai Patel Dhakha, Taluka Dhanera Banaskantha – 385 310 (Gujarat) बनाम/ v/s. The ITO Ward-1 Palanpur – 385 310 \u0013थायी लेखा सं./PAN: CTHPP 2593 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, ARs Revenue by : Shri Uday Krishanrao Kakne, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 10/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 24/07/2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-2018. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.286/Ahd/2025 Raymalbhai Gokalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year 2017-18 2 “1.1 The order passed by U/s.250 passed on 24.07.2024 for AY 2017-18 by NFAC, [CIT(A)], Delhi (for short CIT(A)\" upholding the addition of Rs.1,16,97,500/- made by A.O. is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The ld. CIT(A), has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not appreciating that there could not be compliance to the notices claimed to be issued mainly on account of failure of the tax consultant and the appellant being illiterate and residing in a remote village, he was unaware about the same nor had knowledge or means to access the mail or IT Portal. Thus, there was a sufficient cause for failure to comply with the notices claimed to be issued by NFAC as well as FAO. 3.1 The Id.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding that the cash deposits in both the bank accounts to the extent of Rs. 1,16,97,500/- was unexplained income u/s.69A. 3.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the Id. CIT(A), ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs. 1,16,97,500/- in respect of cash deposits in in both the bank accounts. 3.3 Without prejudice to above, the impugned addition of Rs. 1,16,97,500/- is highly excessive and calls for substantial reduction. It is, therefore, prayed that the additions of Rs. 1,16,97,500/- upheld by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted.” 3. The appeal is time-barred by 137 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. 4. The Ld.Counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the impugned assessment order dated 28/03/2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act to submit that the same is an ex-parte/best judgement assessment order. The Ld.Counsel has further invited our attention to the appellate order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 24/07/2024 to submit that the same is also an ex-parte order. The Ld.Counsel referring to the application for condonation of delay has submitted that, in fact, the assessee Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.286/Ahd/2025 Raymalbhai Gokalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year 2017-18 3 is a farmer and he is neither literate nor computer savvy, and that he does not know nitty-gritties of the Income-tax proceedings. He has further submitted that, now-a-days, income-tax assessment and the appellate proceedings are conducted online. The assessee being an illiterate person had handed over his matter to an Accountant, who had further referred the matter to one Shri Vijay Patel, C.A. In the appellate proceedings, the notices were issued at the email-id of the said Shri Vijay Patel, C.A., who, however, did not properly represent the case in the said proceedings. Thereafter, the assessee entrusted the matter to the firm C.A. Bihari Shah & Co. of Ahmedabad represented through Shri Parag Malvi, C.A. of Palanpur. Thereafter, the assessee was informed that the matter has already been decided by the CIT(A) ex-parte of the assessee. So far as the assessment proceedings were concerned, it has been explained that initial notices were issued during the Corona (Covid- 2019) period and the last notice was issued during the post Corona period. However, as explained above, the C.A. appointed by the assessee did not participate in the proceedings resulting into an ex-parte assessment order. It has, therefore, been requested that in view of the above facts and considering that the assessee is a farmer and illiterate person and, hence, was dependent upon the concerned C.A., who neither informed about the assessee the ongoing proceedings nor participated in the same, hence, in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld.AO. 5. The Ld.DR, however, has relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.286/Ahd/2025 Raymalbhai Gokalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year 2017-18 4 6. Considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that, in this case, the interests of justice will be well served, if, the assessee is given an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. Needless to say, that the assessee will promptly participate in the assessment proceedings and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. 7. With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Makarand V. Mahadeokar) Accountant Member ( Sanjay Garg ) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 29/07/2025 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS आदेश की #ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ% / The Appellant 2. #&थ% / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु' / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु' ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) 5. िवभागीय #ितिनिध , अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर , अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. 6. गाड\u000f फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स&ािपत #ित //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "