ITAT Ahmedabad Condones 153-Day Delay by Senior Citizen, Orders Fresh Hearing in ₹72.2 Lakh Capital Gains Dispute

March 23, 2026 : The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has condoned a delay of 153 days in filing an appeal by a lady senior citizen, holding that her lack of familiarity with income tax procedures and digital systems constituted a sufficient cause. The Tribunal directed restoration of the matter for fresh adjudication, observing that no negligence could be attributed to the assessee in the given circumstances.

The appeal arose from an order dated December 17, 2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had dismissed the assessee’s appeal as non-maintainable on account of delay. The case pertained to Assessment Year 2017–18.

The assessee submitted that she was a senior citizen above 65 years of age and was unaware that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act had been initiated against her. She explained that the address listed on the income tax portal was inactive, resulting in non-receipt of physical notices. Additionally, being non-tech-savvy, she remained unaware of electronic communications sent by the department. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings culminated in an ex parte order under Sections 147 read with 144 of the Act.

It was further explained that the assessee only became aware of the assessment order when her nephew noticed a message from the Income Tax Department on her phone. She then promptly engaged a tax consultant and filed the appeal. The assessee also highlighted that she was a non-filer of income tax returns and unfamiliar with procedural and technical aspects of tax compliance.

On merits, the dispute involved an addition of ₹72,20,000 made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gains from sale of immovable property. The Revenue treated the assessee as holding a one-fifth share in the property and taxed her accordingly. However, the assessee contended that she was merely a confirming party to the transaction, with the entire sale consideration received by her brother, and therefore no capital gains could be taxed in her hands.

The Revenue opposed condonation, arguing that the delay had not been sufficiently explained and that the CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the appeal.

After considering the submissions, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)’s findings. The Bench comprising Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) and Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) observed that the explanation offered by the assessee could not be rejected outright, particularly in light of her age, status as a non-filer, and lack of technological familiarity.

The Tribunal held that no laxity could be attributed to the assessee and noted that she had been saddled with a substantial ex parte addition despite claiming no taxable income and presenting a prima facie case on merits. Emphasising the need to uphold principles of natural justice, the Bench condoned the delay and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting due opportunity of hearing.

Accordingly, the appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Case Title: Meenaben Vishnubhai Patel v. ITO Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad
Case No.: ITA No. 395/Ahd/2026 (AY 2017–18)