MANNA MUKESH THAKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2088/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A) order, restoring the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment. This was subject to the assessee paying Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 279 days. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte because notices were sent to an incorrect email address, preventing their representation. Similar issues occurred before the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to incorrect service of notice warrants a de-novo assessment. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 270A,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, AR
Hearing: 20/04/2026Pronounced: 13/05/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.2088/Ahd/2025 िनधा�रण वष� /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manna Mukesh Thakar ITO D-1004, Gala Area, Nr. SOBO बनाम/ Ward-3(1)(2), v/s. Center, South Bopal, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380058 �थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AFNPT0367D (अपीलाथ�/ Appellant) (�� यथ�/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Parin Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 13/05/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 26/11/2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-2018.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.63,33,987/- by invoking section 69A of the Act. 3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming action of AO in invoking section 115BBE of the Act. 4. Charging of Interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C are unjustified.

ITA No.2088/Ahd/2025 Manna Mukesh Thakar vs. ITO Asst.Year 2017-18 2 5. Initiation of penalty u/s 270A of the Act is unjustified.” 3. The appeal is time-barred by 279 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed.

4.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has brought our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that the same is an ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel has further invited our attention to appeal Form No. 35 filed before the CIT(A) to show that the assessee had mentioned a different email id before the CIT(A) for serving notices of hearing upon the assessee, whereas, the Ld. CIT(A) has sent all the notices on a different email id which did not belong to the assessee. He, therefore, submitted that any notice of hearing sent by CIT(A) did not come to the notice of the assessee. Therefore, the case of the assessee remained unrepresented before the CIT(A) resulting into passing of the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and further resulting into the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that even before the Assessing Officer the case could not be represented resulting into passing the ex-parte, the best judgment assessment order by the AO u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee has fair case on merits and that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the AO.

5.

The Ld. DR, however, has relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.

6.

On considering the aforesaid pleadings, in our view, the interests of justice will be well-served, if the assessee be given an opportunity of hearing to present his case before the AO, however, subject to payment of reasonable

ITA No.2088/Ahd/2025 Manna Mukesh Thakar vs. ITO Asst.Year 2017-18 3 costs. We direct the assessee to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in Prime Minister National Relief Fund and furnish the proof of such deposit before the AO within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. Subject to fulfillment of the aforesaid condition, the delay in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set-aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for de-novo assessment.

7.

With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Judicial Member

अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 13/05/2025 Tanmay, Sr. P.S. TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु� अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation (dictation pad is attached with the file)) : 20.04 2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the : 21.04.2026 Dictating Member. 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S : 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating : Member for pronouncement. 5. Date on which fair order placed before Other Member : 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the : 13.05.2026 Sr.P.S./P.S. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 13.05.2026 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk. : 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar : for signature on the order. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order :

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →