IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT &

SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.716/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

Lakhubhai Nathubhai Sisodiya, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1, Chandisar Chandisar, Dholka, Ward-3(2)(3), Gujarat-387810 (Current Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2)), Ahmedabad [PAN No.BXNPS7168A]

(Appellant) .. (Respondent Appellant by : Shri P D Shah, AR Respondent by: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.08.2025

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

14.12.2022 passed for A.Y. 2012-13.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by confirming the penalty of Rs.1,98,428/-, under section 271(1)(c) of the act, on account of concealment of income, and therefore the learned AO should be directed to delete the said penalty.

2. That your appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing.”

3. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay of 763 days in filing of the present appeal. In the Affidavit submitted by the assessee, he has stated the assessee is 89 years of age and lacked familiarity with the newly introduced e-proceeding system, does not use email himself, and was unaware that the appellate order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre had been served on his son, who resides abroad and was preoccupied with business commitments. It was only in March 2025 that the assessee learnt about the dismissal of his appeal when penalty proceedings brought the matter to light, and the assessee promptly filed the present appeal upon receiving advice from a chartered accountant. On hearing the submissions and examining the facts, we are of the considered view that the substantial delay was neither deliberate nor negligent, but was due to genuine communication difficulties and the assessee’s advanced age. We are of the considered view that it would not be in the interest of justice to allow technical limitations to deprive an elderly taxpayer of his statutory right to appeal. Accordingly, in view of the hardship and inequity that would result from a rigid application of limitation, we hereby condone the delay of 763 days in filing the appeal On merits:

4. The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act for the reason there was the detection of substantial cash deposits in savings bank accounts, amounting to Rs. 36,50,000/- (Rs. 19,50,000/- in Dena Bank and Rs. 17,00,000/- in Bank of India), and the fact that assessee had purchased immovable property during the relevant financial year. The assessee had not filed return of income under section 139 of the Act for the said year, and notice under section 148 was issued on 30.10.2018. In response, the assessee filed a return declaring income of Rs. 1,78,290/-. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had purchased property during the year in which his share amounted to Rs. 8,75,000/-. Since no explanation or supporting documents were submitted by the assessee to explain the source of investment, the said amount was treated as unexplained under section 69 of the Act and added to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were accordingly initiated for concealment of income. During penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted that the addition was agreed to in order to buy mental peace and avoid prolonged litigation, and the entire demand raised was duly paid. The assessee argued that no penalty should be imposed on this basis alone and relied on various judicial precedents in support of his