KANGAN JEWELS PRIVATE LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 80/SRT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a fresh hearing. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Income Tax Department.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) for three scheduled hearings due to miscommunication regarding email notices, leading to an ex-parte order. The Assessing Officer had made additions on interest and commission income and levied penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was justified, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (HYBRID HEARING) Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member

ITA Nos: 79 & 80/SRT/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 106, Saryu Complex Ward-1(1)(3), H. No. 5 981, 982 Jadda Vs Surat Khadi Mahidharpura Mahidharpura S.O. Surat City Surat395003, Gujarat PAN: AADCK2552R (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CA Revenue Represented: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 29-04-2026 Date of pronouncement : 06-05-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

These appeals are filed by the Assessee as against two separate appellate orders dated 21.11.2025 and 25.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and penalty order u/s. 270A of the Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19.

I.T.A Nos. 79 & 80//SRT/2026 A.Y. 2018-19 2 Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO

2.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee fairly submitted that it is an exparte appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) who has given three opportunities of hearing on 24-06-2025, 17- 10-2025 and 13-11-2025. However due to miscommunication, the assessee could not participate in the above appeal hearings. Therefore requested to give one more opportunity of hearing before Ld. CIT(A) to argue on merits of the case.

3.

Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue strongly opposed the above prayer of the assessee counsel that no new evidences filed before the lower authorities. Hence the order passed by the lower authorities does not require any interference.

4.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. During the assessment proceedings, assessee filed partial details before the assessing officer and the assessing officer not satisfied with the same made addition on interest income of Rs.12,86,052/- and commission income on loans and advances of Rs.4,26,803/-.

5.

Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). However not filed any written submission which has resulted in passing exparte appellate order confirming the addition made by the assessing officer and also confirming the penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act. Further it is seen from Form No. 35 before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee categorically stated that not to send notices/communications by email. However Ld. CIT(A) sent email notices which was not noticed by the assessee. Therefore in

I.T.A Nos. 79 & 80//SRT/2026 A.Y. 2018-19 3 Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO

the Principle of Natural Justice, we deem it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) by imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the assessee to the Income Tax Department within two weeks of receipt of copy of this order. On production of payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- before JAO, he is directed to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain its case with all material evidences. Needless to say, the assessee should make use of this final opportunity and produce all relevant documents before JAO to pass order on merits of the case.

6.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Orders pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 06-05-2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat : True Copy Dated 06/05/2026 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, सूरत

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →