M/S EXOTIC JEWELS,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 391/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 July 2026AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no mention of notice being served to the assessee regarding the delay before the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on the delay and merits, ensuring principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to delay. The assessee claimed they did not receive a notice regarding the delay and requested a de-novo order from the CIT(A). The original assessment involved an addition of Rs. 45,82,200/- towards bogus purchases.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing regarding the delay and merits. Whether principles of natural justice were followed by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.06.2026Pronounced: 17.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.391/SRT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/s. Exotic Jewels, Income Tax Officer, C/o Ketan H. Shah, Advocate Ward-2(3)(7), 512, Times Square – 1, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Opp. Ram Baug Bungalow, Surat Thaltej Shilaj Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad PAN: AABFE2823Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Authorised Representative on behalf of Shri Ketan H. Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 17.07.2026 O R D E R PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M: The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short “CIT(A)”] dated 21.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2008-09.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Learned NFAC, CIT(A) has erred in passing the order dated 21-03-2025 without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing in reference to the condonation of delay and therefore, it is said that in view of the natural justice, the matter may please be sent back to the file of CIT(A) to pass de-novo order. 2. That, the Appellant prayed that at the relevant point of time, the Appellant has not engaged any advocate to appear in the matter and therefore, there was non- compliance happened in reference to condonation of delay as well as submission on merits and therefore, the matter may please be sent back to the file of the CIT(A).”

ITA No.391/SRT/2025 M/s. Exotic Jewels 3. The assessee filed original return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 declaring total income at Rs.1,04,800/- on 18.07.2008. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) without making any assessment. As per the information received, it was observed that in the case of beneficiaries of accommodation entries related to Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group, the assessee firm has caried out transaction with the firm i.e. M/s. Little Diam which is run by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain, one of the key persons of the Bhanwarlal Jain group. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 10.03.2015. The assessee firm requested vide letter dated 30.06.2015 to treat the original return of income filed on 18.07.2008 as the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee also requested the copy of reasons recorded to be provided to the assessee. After taking cognizance of the assessee’s reply filed and the statement given by the partner of the firm M/s. Little Diam as well as his retraction, the Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”) made addition of Rs.45,82,200/- towards bogus purchase u/s 69C of the Act.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay.

5.

The Ld. Authorised Representative (in short “Ld. AR”) for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was very minimal and the assessee has not received any notice from the CIT(A) in respect of filing the application for condonation of delay. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) and the assessee be given proper opportunity of hearing on delay as well as on merits.

6.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (in short “Ld. DR”) relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that there is no mention of the service of notice to the assessee in respect of the delay as well as on merit 2

ITA No.391/SRT/2025 M/s. Exotic Jewels before dismissing the appeal by the CIT(A). Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication in respect of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as well as on merit. The assessee is also directed to file the delay condonation application before the CIT(A) within the stipulated time. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice.

8.

In result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat; Dated:17.07.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard File By order,

Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Surat Bench

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →