Jigarkumar Champaklal Inamdar Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Where Is the Order? ITAT Asks Revenue to Prove Timely Passing
A Missing Order Raises a Fundamental Question
An assessment order that does not appear on the income-tax portal can raise a question more fundamental than the correctness of the addition: was the order actually passed within the prescribed time?
In this case, the Ahmedabad Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee’s contention that the assessment order was not reflected on either the old or the new income-tax portal. The Tribunal required the Revenue to establish that the order had been passed in time.
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with liberty to both parties to approach the Tribunal in the event of contrary findings. The decision therefore provides for verification of a jurisdictional fact; it does not record an unconditional quashing of the assessment.
Cash Deposits Led to Reopening
The Assessing Officer received information that the assessee had deposited cash aggregating to ₹24.20 lakh during FY 2011-12 in his savings bank account maintained with Bank of Baroda.
Based on this information, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons for reopening and obtained approval from the Principal Commissioner, Vadodara-1, through a letter dated 27 March 2019. A notice under Section 148 was issued on 28 March 2019 and served upon the assessee.
In response, the assessee requested that his original return, filed on 29 August 2012, be treated as the return furnished in response to the reopening notice.
The Assessing Officer thereafter issued notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2). He also obtained the bank statement directly from Bank of Baroda by issuing a notice under Section 133(6).
₹24.20 Lakh Added for Want of Explanation
Verification of the bank statement confirmed the cash deposits of ₹24.20 lakh. The assessee was called upon to explain their nature and source.
According to the assessment facts recorded by the Tribunal, the assessee did not furnish an explanation or supporting evidence despite being afforded an opportunity. Consequently, the Assessing Officer treated the amount as unexplained cash credit and added it to the assessee’s total income.
The assessee challenged the assessment before the first appellate authority. However, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that sufficient cause for condonation of delay had not been demonstrated. The merits of the addition were consequently not adjudicated.
Appeal Limitation Was Also Disputed
Before the Tribunal, the assessee disputed the conclusion that his first appeal was delayed. His grounds contended that the appeal period had to be computed with reference to service of the relevant order, rather than merely its date.
He also disputed the appellate authority’s assumption concerning the absence of a condonation application and complained that the matter had been decided without proper verification or opportunity.
These remained the assessee’s contentions. The Tribunal did not finally determine the appeal’s timeliness or adjudicate the condonation dispute. Instead, it addressed the additional legal ground challenging the validity of the assessment itself.
Portal Screenshots Brought the Issue into Focus
The assessee raised an additional ground that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 was bad in law and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal admitted the ground because it went to the root of the matter and involved a legal issue arising from the assessment record.
In support, the assessee produced a screenshot of the old income-tax portal, which, according to his submission, did not show the order as having been passed as on 2 December 2019.
He also produced a screenshot of the new income-tax portal dated 2 July 2026, where the assessment order was still not reflected. On this basis, his representative argued that there was no evidence establishing that the assessment order had been passed within time.
Revenue Directed to Verify Timely Passing
After considering the submissions, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the veracity of the claim concerning passing of the order.
It observed that if the Revenue could not prove that the order had been passed in time, “the matter stands at rest.” Both parties were granted liberty to approach the Tribunal in case of contrary findings.
The outcome was therefore a verification direction, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal neither upheld the cash-deposit addition on merits nor conclusively held that the absence of the order on the portal, by itself, invalidated the assessment.
Author’s Comments
The decision highlights the importance of checking the existence and timing of an assessment order, particularly where the electronic record does not display it.
However, three questions should be kept distinct: when the order was passed, when it was served, and whether it appears on the portal. Evidence concerning one may prompt examination of the others, but they are not automatically interchangeable.
Practitioners should preserve dated portal screenshots and the available communication records when raising such objections. Here, the screenshots secured a direction requiring the Revenue to verify timely passing of the order.
The practical message is clear: before defending an assessment, the Department must be able to establish that the order was passed within time.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal ADDL/JCIT (A)-7 Delhi , relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble CIT (A) had erred in not admitting the appeal of the appellant for the year under consideration.
2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble CIT (A) had erred in passing an order without considering the provisions of the section 249(2)(b) of the Act that, the appeal is to be filed within the period of 30 days from the date of service of an order and not from the date of passing an order and without considering the fact that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of 30 days.
3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble CIT (A) had erred in dismissing the appeal on the erroneous assumption that the appellant has not filed the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal and without verification and without giving an opportunity to appellant.
4. Your appellant prays that the order of the hon ble CIT(A) to be set aside and to be restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the matter OR alternatively the hon ble ITAT may adjudicate the issue on the merit.
5. Your appellant prays for leave to add, alter and / OR amend / withdraw any and / OR all the grounds of appeal adduced above.
Additional ground
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of th Act, is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
3. The brief facts of the case are that information was received by the Assessing Officer regarding cash deposits aggregating to Rs.24,20,000/- made by the assessee during F.Y. 2011-12 in his savings bank account maintained with Bank of Baroda. On the basis of the information, the assessment was reopened after recording reasons and obtaining the necessary approval from the Pr. CIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara, vide letter dated 27.03.2019. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued on 28.03.2019 and duly served upon the assessee. In response, the assessee requested that the original return of income filed on 29.08.2012 be treated as the return filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act were issued. The Assessing Officer also issued a notice under Section 133(6) of the Act to Bank of Baroda, Vadodara, and obtained the relevant bank statement. On verification, it was found that cash deposits aggregating to Rs.24,20,000/- had been made in the assessee’s bank account during the relevant financial year. The assessee was called upon to explain the nature and source of the said cash deposits. However, despite being afforded an opportunity, the assessee did not furnish any explanation or supporting evidence. Accordingly, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation regarding the source of the cash deposits, the Assessing Officer treated Rs.24,20,000/- as unexplained cash credit and added the same to the total income of the assessee.
4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, since the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for condonation of the delay.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has also raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since the additional ground goes to the root of the matter and involves a legal issue arising from the assessment record, the same is admitted for adjudication.
7. From the record, it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits. The assessee has also raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings. The assessee has submitted screen shot of old income-tax portal wherein the order was not shown to have passed as on 02.12.2019. The assessee has also submitted screen shot of new income-tax portal dated 02.07.2026, wherein the assessment order is not reflected till today. Since there is no evidence to prove the passing of the assessment order in time, as per the argument of the Ld. AR, the order is liable to be quashed. Having considered the matter, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the veracity of the claim of passing of the order. In case the Revenue could not prove passing of the order in time, the matter stands at rest. The parties are given liberty to approach the Tribunal in case of any contrary findings.
In view of the above, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 30.09.2026
