Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Rameshkumar G Patel ,Vadodara vs Nfac, Delhi Juris. Ao- The Ito Ward ... on 23 March, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD "A" BENCH
Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President
And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member
ITA Nos: 1918 & 1919/Ahd/2025
Asst Year: 2017-18
Rameshkumar G Patel Income Tax Officer
20, Muktanand Society, National Faceless
Karelibaug Vs Assessment Centre
Vadodara-390001 New Delhi
Gujarat Jurisdictional AO-
ITO-Ward-3(1)(2),
PAN: AGZPP2126P Vadodara
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee Represented: Shri Viranch Modi, CA
Revenue Represented: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr.D.R.
Date of hearing : 25-02-2026
Date of pronouncement : 23-03-2026
आदे श/ORDER
PER: T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER These two appeals are filed by the Assessee as against separate appellate orders both dated 10-09-2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as "CIT(A)"), arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B and Penalty order u/s. 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18.
I.T.A Nos. 1918 & 1919/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 22. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual engaged in textile business. Assessee filed his Return of Income on 09-03-2018 for the Asst. Year 2017-18, declaring total income of Rs.2,89,960/-. The assessee had disclosed income of Rs.92,62,430/- under Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 (herein after referred as 'IDS 2016') being investment made in an immovable property, however not paid the admitted taxes within the time limit provided under the Scheme. As per the IDS 2016 Scheme, the income is liable to be charged to tax in the current Asst. year 2017-18. Therefore, the assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act. The assessee not responded to the 148 notice as well as to the notices issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Therefore a show cause notice issued on 23-01- 2023, as to why the amount of Rs.92,62,430/- be treated as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act and taxed u/s. 115BBE of the Act, as the taxes admitted under the IDS,2016 Scheme not paid by the assessee.
2.1. The assessee made reply vide letter dated 06-02-2023 as follows:
"... I have not made any investment during the year relevant to AY 2017-18. The undisclosed investment is alleged due to IDS-2016 disclosure. The asset disclosed was acquired in FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13. Which was re- opened and an appeal has already been preferred before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Copy of order attached herewith as per Annexure A. The property disclosed under IDS-2016 was purchased on 09/11/2012 with consideration of Rs.66,00,000/-vide sale deed number 240/2012. I would like to inform you that case is already under Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) for Assessment year 2013-14 vide appeal number 440939561040820 (Copy of appeal is enclosed as per Annexure- B). Since the amount of Rs.92,62,430/- is the value calculated under IDS scheme considering inflation indexed cost. Hence the value is only Rs.66,00,000/-. "I.T.A Nos. 1918 & 1919/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 3
3. Considering the above reply and the addition of Rs.92,62,433/- already assessed in the Asst. Year 2013-14 on substantive basis, the disclosed income is to be taxed in the year in which the declaration is made namely Asst. Year 2017-18, therefore the AO made addition of Rs.92,62,433/- on Protective basis in the Asst. Year 2017-18 and treated as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act and also chargeable to tax u/s.115BBE of the Act and demanded tax thereon vide order dated 18-04-2023. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act.
4. The assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) on 20-06-2025 against the reassessment order with a delay of 764 days with the following explanation before Ld. CIT(A):
"To THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE-NEW DELHI Ref. Assessment Order passed by Ld. AO dated 18/04/2023, AY 2017-18 Sub. Condonation of delay in filing of Appeal before your Honour
1) With respect to above mentioned subject, appellant would like to state that id. AO had passed assessment order u/s 147 rws 1448 of the income Tax Act, 1961 on 18/04/2023 making addition of Rs. 92,62,433/ on protective basis.
2) Being aggrieved by such order, appellant had preferred to file an appeal before your Honor. However, there is a delay of 763 days in filing this appeal before your Honour although due to genuine reasons and circumstances.
3) Case of appellant had been reopened for AY 13-14 as well, wherein appeal was preferred to CIT(A) against assessment order, who dismissed appeal of appellant based on fact that requisite details were not placed before Id.
CIT(A).
4) Therefore, Appellant went to another consultant for guidance in matter and based on his advice, appeal was preferred with Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad, wherein case is due for hearing on 24/06/2025.
I.T.A Nos. 1918 & 1919/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 45) While analysing case of appellant for AY 13-14, the consultant had gone through Income Tax profile of your appellant, wherein he observed that proceedings in case of appellant had been carried out for AY 17-18 as well, wherein assessment order and infact penalty order had also been issued by ld. AO on protective basis.
6) After analysing facts of case and on advice of new consultant, appellant had agreed to file an appeal before your Honor, although filing of appeal got delayed by this time.
7) Accordingly, appellant request your Honor to condone the delay in filing appeal and accordingly accept appeal filed by appellant, to decide case on merits.
8) For this act of greatness, appellant will always remain obliged to you.
9) In case your Honor wishes to take any other opinion in subject matter, it is requested to give an opportunity of personal hearing."
5. Ld. CIT(A) considered the delay of 764 days in filing the appeal and found 'No Reasonable Cause' made by the assessee and dismissed the appeal by relying upon various judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts and by observing as follows:
"6. Justification for Delay & Sufficiency of Cause 6.1 At the outset, it needs to be kept in view that the language used in section 249(3) is "sufficient cause and not "reasonable cause". 'Sufficient cause' is much more stringent that the term 'reasonable cause' and even if a cause is reasonable, it has to be ascertained whether it was a sufficient cause or not.
6.2 Against this backdrop, the contention of the petitioner was carefully evaluated. There is a delay of 764 days, which is not duly explained as pointed out in Para 3.2 above. In the present appeal, therefore, the petitioner is found to have failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for having not filed the instant appeal within due time.
6.3 Hon. Courts have cautioned regarding the necessity of distinguishing cases where delay is of few days, as against the cases where the delay is inordinate as it might accrue to the prejudice of the rights of the other party. In such cases, where there exists inordinate delay and the same is attributable to the party's inaction and negligence, the Courts have to take a strict approach.
I.T.A Nos. 1918 & 1919/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 5Rameshkumar G. Patel Vs. ITO 6.4 The expression 'sufficient cause' has relevancy to reasonableness and actions, which can be condoned by the Court and it should fall within realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant; pre-occupation of an officer or officials can be a reasonable excuse, but for a short period and nothing justifies inaction for a pretty long period running into months, as has been held in Omate Traders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2008] [2009] 312 ITR 193 (Bom.).
6.5 The laws of limitation are found upon the maxims "Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium" that litigation must come to an end in the interest of society as a whole and "vigilantibus non dormientibus Jura subveniunt" that the law assists those that are vigilant with their rights, and not those that sleep thereupon. The law of limitation in India identifies the need for limiting litigation by striking a balance between the interests of the state and the litigant.
6.6 The delay should not be condoned simply because the appellant's case is hard and calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the party seeking relief. In granting the indulgence and condoning the delay it must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the appellant was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. Sufficient cause within the contemplation of the limitation provision must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 has held that the cause for the delay in filing the appeal which by due care and attention could have been avoided cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of the limitation provision. "
6. Aggrieved against the appellate order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal:
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of your appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in denying condonation of delay and thereby not admitting appeal of appellant without appreciating fact that delay in filing appeal was because of genuine and sufficient reasons.
2) On the facts and in the circumstances of your appellant's case and in law, the Ld. AO has grievously erred in reopening the case of appellant without having adequate and appropriate jurisdiction.
3) Ld. AO had erred in obtaining approval of specified authority u/s 151(1) of Act without appreciating fact that more than 3 years had lasped from end of relevant assessment year.I.T.A Nos. 1918 & 1919/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 6
4) On the facts and in the circumstances of your appellant's case and in law, the Id. AO has erred in making Protective addition of Rs. 92,63,433/- based upon self declaration given under IDS-2016 without appreciating fact that declaration given under IDS-2016 is deemed to be never ever given in case of non payment of taxes and income is deemed to income of year in which declaration is given.
5) On the facts and in the circumstances of your appellant's case and in law, the Id. AO has erred in making an addition of Rs. 92,63,433/- u/s 69A of Act read with amended provision of section 115BBE of Act without appreciating fact that declaration of income under IDS-2016 could not alter character and form of income and provisions of amended section 115BBE are not applicable in present case. Same are applicable from 01/04/2017 onwards.
6) Your appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend the grounds herein above raised."
7. Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted in the present assessment year also, the reassessment proceeding is bad in law as like in the Asst Year 2013-14 and raised various grounds in support of his contention and requested to quash the reassessment order for the present Asst. Year 2017-18. As far as the condonation of delay, the assessee in his Written Submission mainly relied upon two case laws to condone the delay in filing the appeals namely Biren Dhirajlal Shah -Vs- ITO 173 Taxmann.com 261 [Ahd Tri] and Vidya Shankar Jaiswal -Vs- ITO 174 Taxmann.com 21 [SC]. Therefore, the assessee requested to allow the appeals filed by the assessee.
8. Per contra, Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the orders passed by the lower authorities and submitted that no 'sufficient cause' made out by the assessee to condone the substantial delay in filing the appeals and therefore requested to confirm the order of Ld CIT[A] and dismiss the assessee appeals.
I.T.A Nos. 1918 & 1919/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 79. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. Before going into the merits of the case, first let us adjudicate Ground No.1 namely the delay of 764 days in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who has refused to condone the delay by passing a speaking order. The assessee in his explanation before Ld. CIT(A) stated that on the advice of new Consultant and perusing the IT portal the assessee came to know the orders passed for the Asst. Year 2017-18, thereafter the assessee filed the appeals with a delay of 764 days. However, it is seen from record at the very reassessment proceedings itself, the assessee replied to the SCN vide letter dated 06-02-2023 that the reassessment is already concluded in the Asst. Year 2013-14 on the very same addition and requested to drop the reassessment proceedings for the Asst. Year 2017-18.
9.1. Further it is seen from record that the assessee was vigilant enough in making declaration under IDS-2016 on the undisclosed investment made in the immovable property. However, for non- payment of admitted taxes, reassessment order passed for the Asst. Year 2013-14 and the assessee filed statutory appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and further appeal before this Tribunal well within the time limit. The assessee has not clear in stating who was the previous Tax Consultant and the new Tax Consultant with name, address and supporting affidavits from them, but NOT filed in support of his claim. However, in reply letter dated 06-02-2023 to the SCN, the assessee clearly pleaded not to proceed with the reassessment proceedings for the Asst. year 2017-18 as already substantive assessment made in A.Y. 2013-14. Further in the appellate proceedings before this Tribunal in ITA No. 397/Ahd/2025 for the Asst. Year 2013-14 it was submitted I.T.A Nos. 1918 & 1919/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 8 Rameshkumar G. Patel Vs. ITO that protective addition also made for the Asst. Year 2017-18 and requested to delete the addition for A.Y. 2013-14. Considering the submission of the assessee the following order passed by this Tribunal:
"... 7.1 Ground No. 1: Challenge to validity of reassessment under section 147/148 7.1.1 The primary challenge of the assessee relates to the jurisdictional validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2019 for A.Y. 2013-14, contending that the alleged escapement of income pertained to non-fulfilment of declaration under the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS), 2016, and hence such income, if any, was chargeable to tax in the year of declaration, i.e., A.Y. 2017-18, and not the year under appeal. In support of this proposition, the assessee has relied on clause (b) of section 197 of the Finance Act, 2016, which specifically provides that where the tax under IDS is not paid, the declared income shall be deemed to be income of the year in which the declaration is made. Admittedly, in the present case, the declaration was made in F.Y. 2016-17 (relevant to A.Y. 2017-18), and the assessee failed to pay the full amount of tax, resulting in invalidation of the declaration.
7.1.2 It is further brought on record that in the assessment order for A.Y. 2017-18 passed under section 147 on 18.04.2023, the Assessing Officer has already made a protective addition of Rs. 92,62,433/-, in respect of the same amount disclosed under IDS. The said addition has been challenged by the assessee before the learned CIT(A), where the appeal is stated to be pending. Thus, the addition is yet to be tested and adjudicated in the correct assessment year.
7.1.3 In the above backdrop, we find merit in the assessee's plea that the income, if any, relatable to the invalidated IDS declaration pertains to A.Y. 2017-18. The rationale of the reopening for A.Y. 2013-14 is not borne out from the record or from the statutory scheme of section 197 of the Finance Act, 2016. Therefore, in our considered view, the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 for A.Y. 2013-14 is vitiated and without legal sanction.I.T.A Nos. 1918 & 1919/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 9
Rameshkumar G. Patel Vs. ITO 7.1.4 As regards the DR's contention that the assessee failed to raise objections before the AO, we note that non- participation by the assessee cannot cure a jurisdictional defect which goes to the root of the matter. It is settled law that jurisdictional challenge can be entertained even at the appellate stage.
7.1.5 We also note that the Assessing Officer has already made a protective addition of Rs.92,62,433/- in A.Y. 2017-18, and the assessee has challenged the same in appeal before the learned CIT(A), which is presently pending adjudication. In these circumstances, no prejudice is caused to the interest of the Revenue by setting aside the reassessment framed for the earlier year.
7.1.6 In view of the above discussion, we hold that the reassessment proceedings initiated for A.Y. 2013-14 are bad in law and liable to be quashed. The assessment order dated 06.12.2019 passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 is accordingly set aside."
10. Thus the claim of the assessee that he is not aware of the reassessment proceedings is merely an afterthought and the assessee failed to participate in the hearing before the Assessing Officer. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) [in SLP (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018 decided on 08/04/2024] have given following guidelines for condonation of delay:
"... i. Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself, ii. A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;
I.T.A Nos. 1918 & 1919/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 10 Rameshkumar G. Patel Vs. ITO iii. In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation.
iv. Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
v. Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;
vi. Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay;
vii. Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamount to disregarding the statutory provision.
10.1. In the case of State of Gujarat -Vs- Sayed Mohd. Baquir El Edross (AIR 1981 SC 1921] Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following principles that should govern the exercise of powers of condonation under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
" 1. The party seeking relief has to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal, etc., within the prescribed time.
2. The explanation has to cover the entire period of delay.
3. A litigant should not be permitted to take away a right which has accrued to his adversary by lapse of time.
4. After sufficient cause is shown, the Court is to inquire whether in its discretion, it should condone the delay. I.T.A Nos. 1918 & 1919/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 11 Rameshkumar G. Patel Vs. ITO
5. The discretion conferred on the Court is a judicial discretion and must be exercised to advance substantial justice.
6. Even if there was a strong case for acceptance of the appeal on merits that could not be a ground for condonation of delay.
7. When there is remiss on the part of the advocate, the question that comes up for consideration is whether the mistake was bona fide or was merely a device to cover the ulterior purpose such as latches on the part of the litigant or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way."
10.2. Considering the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the assessee failed to give reasonable/sufficient cause in the delay in filing the appeals before CIT[A]. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if 'sufficient cause' is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence. In that case merits of the case are NOT required to be considered in condoning the delay. Thus, the discretion conferred on the Court is a judicial discretion and must be exercised to advance substantial justice. Considering the facts in the present case, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) refusing to condone the delay of 764 days in fling the appeal by the assessee. Further the case laws relied by the assessee are factually distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and remaining grounds on merits are not adjudicated since the delay is not condoned.
I.T.A Nos. 1918 & 1919/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 12 Rameshkumar G. Patel Vs. ITO
11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed.
ITA No.1919/Ahd/202512. This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the penalty levied u/s. 271AAC of the Act wherein also there is a delay of 421 days in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. CIT(A) passed a detailed order as stated above in the quantum appeal and dismissed the appeal refusing to condone the delay of 421 days in filing the appeal. Aggrieved against the appellate order the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal :
1) On the facts and in the circumstances of your appellant's case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in denying condonation of delay and thereby not admitting appeal of appellant without appreciating fact that delay in filing appeal was because of genuine and sufficient reasons.
2) On the facts and in the circumstances of your appellant's case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in imposing penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of Act on protective basis without appreciating fact that levy of penalty on protective basis is not permissible under Income Tax Act.
3) On the facts and in the circumstances of your appellant's case and in law, the Ld. AO had grossly erred in carrying out penalty proceedings without obtaining requisite permission from designated authority as per provision of section 274(2) of Act.
4) On the facts and in the circumstances of your appellant's case and in law, the Ld. AO had failed to appreciate fact that appellant had given suo moto declaration under IDS-2016, although could not pay taxes due to financial crunch. Such self declaration could not alter Form and character of Income. Therefore, income is not chargeable to tax u/s 69A of Act.
5) Ld. AO had failed to appreciate fact that section 115BBE of Act was amended by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 which came into force on 15.12.2016 and applicable from 01/04/2017.
I.T.A Nos. 1918 & 1919/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 13 Rameshkumar G. Patel Vs. ITO
6) Your appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend the grounds herein above raised.
13. The assessee has no new reasons than what was stated in the quantum appeal. Since the quantum appeal was dismissed on the ground that 'sufficient cause' not proved by the assessee, in this penalty case also, the assessee failed to prove the 'sufficient cause' for the delay of 421 days in fling the appeal. Therefore, the decision made in Paragraph Nos. 8 to 9.2 of this order, the same ratio will be applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, therefore remaining grounds on merits are not adjudicated since the delay is not condoned.
14. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23-03-2026
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. BRR KUMAR) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR)
VICE PRESIDENT True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad :
Dated 23/03/2026
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. Assessee
2. Revenue
3. Concerned CIT
4. CIT (A)
5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. Guard file.
By order/आदे श से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद