SHREE NANA JADRA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR V. THE ITO, WARD-1(9), BHAVNAGAR

ITA 2570/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shree Nana Jadra Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd., which appealed against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2018-19. The primary issues in the appeal included the rejection of a condonation application for delay in filing, non-admission of additional evidence, and the addition of Rs. 1,07,06,370 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in not considering the merits of the case due to procedural technicalities and granted an opportunity for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 835179 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENKUMAR M. VASAVDA
• Assessee Lawyers: NEMISH SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद \u0011ायपीठ “ए“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD \u0016ी संजय गग\u001b, \u0011ाियक सद एवं अ पूणा\u001b गु!ा, लेखा सद क े सम%। ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.2570/Ahd/2025 िनधा \u000fरण वष\u000f /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Nana Jadra Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. At Nana Jadra Village Mahuva Bhavnagar – 364 290 बनाम/ v/s. The ITO Ward-1(9) Bhavnagar – 364 001 \u0013थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAXAS 2474 E (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nemish Shah, CA Revenue by : Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 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 28/10/2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. The assessee, in this appeal, has taken the following grounds of appeal: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2570/Ahd/2025 Shree Nana Jadra Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 2 “GROUND I: Rejection of condonation application 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, is erroneous in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that: a. the settled legal position that the term \"sufficient cause\" must be interpreted liberally to ensure that a potentially meritorious matter is not dismissed at the threshold due to a technicality. b. the appellant was unaware of the passing of the assessment order on the online portal and this fact was brought to its notice only when it received physical letter of recovery of demand. c. denying the appellant a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the merits of the case, which violates the principles of natural justice. 3. The appellant submits that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal, which was explained with necessary evidence, and the delay was not deliberate 4 The appellant prays that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the merits of the case be given. GROUND III: Non-admission of additional evidence 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence furnished by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from producing the said evidence before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the additional evidence as it was crucial and relevant for the proper adjudication of the core issue in appeal and for rendering substantial justice. 4. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law as it was passed without considering all relevant facts and evidence, and without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard on the matter of the additional evidence. GROUND III: Addition of Rs. 1,07,06,370/- on account of cash deposits u/s 69A of the Act Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2570/Ahd/2025 Shree Nana Jadra Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 3 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of cash deposit of Rs. 1,07,06,370/- by treating it as unexplained money u/s 69A is bad in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that out of total cash deposits of Rs.1,07,06,370/-, cash deposits of Rs.63,75,745/- are from genuine business transactions done by the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant received the cash from its members as repayment of loan given to its members along with interest. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that out of total cash deposits of Rs. 1,07,06,370/-, cash deposits of Rs. 43,30,625/- does not belong to the year under consideration and the assessment order passed is erroneous to that extent. The appellant prays that once the source and genuineness of the cash deposits are explained, the addition u/s 69A cannot be made. GROUND IV: The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing or before.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) to submit that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without considering the submissions of the assessee. There was a delay of 141 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this ground also. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that, in fact, the assessee did not come to know of the passing of the impugned assessment order as there was non-representation before the Assessing Officer (AO) also. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits, but due to certain circumstances, the proper representation could not be made before the lower authorities. He has further submitted that out of the two additions of Rs.43 lakhs and Rs.63 lakhs on account of cash deposits, Rs.43 lakhs did not pertain to the assessment year under Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2570/Ahd/2025 Shree Nana Jadra Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 4 consideration. He has submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present its case before the AO. 4. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the findings of the lower authorities. 5. Considering the aforesaid submissions, in our view, the interests of justice will be well-served if the assessee be given an opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A), however, subject to payment of reasonable costs. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. AO for assessment afresh, subject to deposit of cost of Rs.10,000/- in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The assessee will furnish the proof of aforesaid deposit of Rs.10,000/- before the AO. Subject to fulfilment of the above condition, the AO will pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. It will not a ground available to the assessee that the assessee has not received the notice of hearing before the AO. The assessee is advised to be vigilant and regularly check its email/income-tax Portal for the purpose of participation in the set aside assessment proceedings. 6. With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09/02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta ) Accountant Member ( Sanjay Garg) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 09/02/2026 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2570/Ahd/2025 Shree Nana Jadra Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 5 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), Delhi 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 1. Date of dictation (dictation pad is attached with file) : 2.2.2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member. : 3.2.2026 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S : 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement. : 5. Date on which fair order placed before Other Member : 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S. : 9.2.26 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 9.2.26 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk. : 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order. : 10. Date of Despatch of the Order : Printed from counselvise.com "