SAHIRBAHI KOTHIYA,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2166/AHD/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mr. Sahirbhai Kothiya against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had dismissed his appeal due to a 12-day delay in filing. The delay was attributed to a medical emergency involving the assessee's father. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay sufficient and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the case on its merits, highlighting that similar cases with co-owners did not result in any additions. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a fair hearing and proper consideration of the merits of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831000 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Unexplained expenditure; Unexplained investment
• Section: 69; 69C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Mr. Sahirbhai Kothiya P-631, Surti Society, Opp: Moonlight Factory C.T.M. Ramol Road, Ahmedabad-382449 PAN: ALMPK7172N (Appellant) Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Varis Isani, Advocate. Revenue Represented: Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 12-01-2026 Date of pronouncement : 21-01-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against appellate order dated 12-09-2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), refusing the condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal before CIT(A). 2. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “Prayer: ITA No: 2166/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 2166/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Sahirbhai Kothiya vs. ITO 2 It is therefore prayed that, 1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) may please be quashed and set aside, condone the delay and allow the appeal. 2. Delay of 12 days caused in filing the first appeal may please be condone as appellant has explained sufficient and reasonable caused. 3. Addition made of Rs. 1,62,62,400/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act may kindly be deleted. 4. Addition made of Rs. 38,12,631/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act may kindly be deleted. 5. Addition made of Rs. 39,588/- as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Income Tax Act may kindly be deleted. 6. Addition made of Rs. 1,31,922/- treated as misreporting under the Income Tax Act may kindly be deleted. 7. Addition made of Rs. 1,14,720/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act may kindly be deleted. 8. Delay of 5 days caused in filing the appeal before the tribunal may please be condone. Delay condonation application is annexed separately. 9. Reopening of the assessment may please be held as time barred and without jurisdictions. 10. Reopening of the assessment may please be dropped as it is based on third party evidences without having any independent mind. 11. A chance of hearing and proper opportunity of being heard may please be given. 12. Any other relief which may deemed fit and proper may please be given.” 3. It is seen from the appellate order that there is delay of 12 days which is due to personal difficulty and medical emergency of the Authorized Representative of the assessee who has filed the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). This was considered as not sufficient cause by Ld. CIT(A) and thereby dismissed the appeal, without going into the merits of the case. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 2166/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Sahirbhai Kothiya vs. ITO 3 4. Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee furnished before us copies of the medical emergency treatment of his father by the consulting Physician & Cardiologist vide his report dated 18-04-2024 and following medical test report dated 21-05-2024 which caused the delay of 12 days in filing the above appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Thus we are convinced with the medical emergency reasons submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, however the assessee should not suffer for an arbitrary additions made by the Ld. A.O. Thus we hereby condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). On merits of the case, the assessee Counsel filed before us the assessment orders in the case of other Co-owners namely Nazim Kothiya and Sadrubhai R. Kothiya, wherein no additions were made by the respective Assessing Officers. Since the present appellate order is without condoning the delay dismissed the appeal, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to look into the matter on merits by giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the matter in accordance with the provisions of law. Needless to say the assessee should cooperate in the appellate proceedings by filing all relevant documents before Ld. CIT(A) to pass order on merits of the case. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 21 -01-2026 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 21/01/2026 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 2166/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Sahirbhai Kothiya vs. ITO 4 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 "