SHANKUTLABEN PATEL,PETLAD V. NFAC, DELHI, THE ITO, WARD-1, ANAND

ITA 1050/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shankutlaben Patel, a senior citizen and uneducated individual from a small village, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appeal was initially delayed due to the assessee's lack of awareness and understanding of the income tax laws, compounded by her dependence on her daughter's father-in-law, who also lacked expertise in tax matters. The Assessing Officer had added Rs. 17,29,639 as unexplained income based on cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, as she failed to respond to multiple notices. Both the initial assessment and the CIT(Appeals) decision were passed ex parte due to her non-compliance. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the matter had not been examined on merits and thus restored the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774944 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATEEK SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH; RUSHIN PATEL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1050/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shankutlaben Patel, 1, Vachali Khadki, At Post Mehlav, Tal. Petlad, Gujarat-388440 Vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi through Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand [PAN No.BGTPP9040F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri M J Shah, AR & Shri Rushin Patel AR Respondent by: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 02.09.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has 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 31.10.2023 passed for A.Y. 2013-14. Condonation of Delay: 2. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 499 days in filing the present appeal. In support of the application for condonation of delay, the assessee has filed an Affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. It is stated in the said Affidavit that the assessee is a senior citizen, is uneducated, and resides in a small village, having no knowledge of Income Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1050/Ahd/2025 Shankutlaben Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2013-14 - 2– Tax Laws and Procedures. She was wholly dependent on her daughter’s father-in-law, Mr. Suryakant Ambalal Patel, who himself is an elderly and not well-versed person in tax matters. The order of the CIT(A) was received by the tax consultant through e-proceedings and email, as his email ID was registered on the income tax portal. Although the tax consultant had informed Mr. Suryakant Patel about the order, the same was not communicated to the assessee, who remained unaware of the order passed against her. Subsequently, in May 2025, while consulting an accountant regarding tax deducted on interest income, the assessee came to know that an appealable order had already been passed in her case by CIT(Appeals). It was only upon further inquiry that she became aware that no appeal had been filed earlier due to conflicting advice received by Mr. Suryakant Patel from multiple tax consultants, and that the matter was unintentionally left unattended. Thereafter, the assessee took immediate steps to consult a tax professional and filed the appeal on 13.05.2025. Having considered the Affidavit, submissions, and the circumstances explained by the assessee, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal has occurred due to bona fide reasons and not due to any deliberate negligence or mala fide intent. The assessee is a senior citizen with limited understanding of legal procedures and was dependent on others for handling her income tax affairs. In the interest of substantial justice, we are inclined to condone the delay of 499 days in filing the appeal. 3. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1050/Ahd/2025 Shankutlaben Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2013-14 - 3– On Merits: 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. AO and Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case, in making and sustaining the addition of Rs. 17,29,639/- on account unexplained cash deposits respectively without hearing the assessee and without properly appreciating the facts of the case and law in that perspective. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had not filed her return of income for the relevant year. Based on information available through the Annual Information Return (AIR) and Individual Transaction Statement (ITS), the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had made aggregate cash deposits of Rs. 17,29,639/- in her savings bank account during the Financial Year 2012- 13. Consequently, an inquiry was initiated, and notices under sections 148, 142(1), and show cause notices under section 144B of the Act were issued to the assessee, seeking an explanation and supporting documents regarding the source of these deposits made by the assessee. However, despite these notices being duly served (both electronically and physically), the assessee failed to respond and neither did she participate in assessment proceedings. Accordingly, due to the assessee’s complete non-compliance, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had not explained the nature and source of the cash deposits, and therefore, by invoking section 69A of the Act, he deemed the amount of Rs. 17,29,639/- as unexplained money and accordingly added the same as income of the assessee for the year under consideration. The assessment was completed Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1050/Ahd/2025 Shankutlaben Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2013-14 - 4– ex parte under section 144 of the Act based on the basis of information available on record, and the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 17,29,639/-. 6. In appeal, CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-appearance. The CIT(Appeals) noted that despite the issuance of multiple notices dated 18.11.2022, 14.12.2022, and 19.10.2023 making a request for written submissions and supporting documents, the assessee failed to respond, neither did she furnish any evidence, or seek adjournment at any stage of the appellate proceedings. The only documents available on record were the Form 35 and a copy of the assessment order. In the absence of any rebuttal or supporting evidence from the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) found no reason to interfere with the assessment order. Consequently, the appeal of the Act the assessee was dismissed. 7. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. In the present case, it is observed that both the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act, and the order of the learned CIT(Appeals), have been passed ex parte, owing to the assessee's failure to comply with the statutory notices issued during both assessment and appellate proceedings. The Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment treating the cash deposits as unexplained under section 69A of the Act and the CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition solely for want of any submissions or supporting evidence from the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1050/Ahd/2025 Shankutlaben Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2013-14 - 5– Having regard to the fact that the matter has not been examined on merits at any stage due to the non-participation of the assessee, and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to explain her case. We, therefore restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication, after giving due opportunity to the assessee to submit her explanation and supporting documents in relation to the cash deposits in question. The assessee is directed to cooperate fully in the remand proceedings and furnish the requisite details and evidence within the time permitted by the Assessing Officer. In case of continued non-compliance, the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law based on the material available on record. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 02/09/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 02/09/2025 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 "