JACINTA LUIS LOPES,SILVASSA vs. ITO WARD-1, VAPI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1432/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 June 2026AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided to be sufficient cause. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 773 days. The assessee, a housewife, cited her husband's death and issues with her tax consultant receiving hearing notices as reasons for the delay. The Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte order under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18/05/2026

In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Surat Bench, Surat

Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1432/SRT/2025 (�नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jacinta Luis Lopes The Income Tax Officer Country Liquor LIC 6 Opp. Forest Ward-1, Vapi. Vs. Check Post, Silvassa Dadra & Nagar Room No.708, 7th Floor, Income Haveli (UT), Gujarat Tax Office, Fortune Square-II, Above TBZ, Chala, Vapi, Gujarat-396191. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIHPL4250A (अपीलाथ�/Assessee) (��यथ�/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P M Jagasheth, CA Respondent by : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18/05/2026 : 01/06/2026 Date of Pronouncement

ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, dated 13.09.2023, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, on, 22.10.2019. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-13, is barred by limitation by 773 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to

ITA No.1432/Srt/2025 Jacinta Luis Lopes condone the delay. Learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons for delay stating that assessee under consideration is housewife and not educated, studied only 6th Standard. The husband of the assessee, Mr. Luis Lopes, was expired on 07.01.2021. Due to tension environment in the family, the assessee could not pay attention on the taxation matters. Besides, the assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) through his tax consultant and the tax consultant had mentioned his email ID in column-17 of appeal Form-35 i.e. hiteshpatel.associates@gmail.com. But the hearing notices were issued on the different email IDs. Consequently, the assessee had not received any hearing notices through email or physical. Later on, when assessee’s bank account was attached and transactions were stopped due to such attachment, therefore, assessee made inquiries with the bank. Thereafter, assessee visited the office of her earlier Authorized Representative/Advocate and checked the Income Tax portal, where assessee came to know that the order was passed by the learned CIT(A), as an ex parte . Because of the above reasons, the appeal has been filed with a delay of 773 days. Therefore, Ld.Counsel humbly prays that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned in the interest of justice.

3.

On the other hand, Ld.DR for the revenue, submitted that in this case no "sufficient cause" was shown by the assessee to explain the huge/unreasonable delay in filing of appeal. Rather, this is a clear case of deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the assessee. Period of delay is a factor to be considered while considering a delay condonation application, hence, delay should not be condoned.

4.

I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. Decision of High Court of Madras in the case of Indian Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. (1994) 119 Page 2 of 4

ITA No.1432/Srt/2025 Jacinta Luis Lopes CTR 0045 wherein it was held that when the appeal lies on facts and law and the appellate authority is also entitled to take into account the subsequent events that take place during the pendency of or subsequent to the order challenged in the appeal, we are of the view that the alternative remedy of appeal cannot at all be considered to be either inadequate or inefficacious. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has also considered this aspect of condonation of delay in case of Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (283 ITR 149) and held that...

"The position in law is well settled that an assessee should be granted due relief where it is due without standing on technicalities and the revenue must bear the established legal position in mind while dealing with applications seeking condonation of delay. It is necessary that liberal approach is adopted in such a matter so as to ensure that substantive rights are not defeated on the basis of technicalities or limitation."

5.

I note that the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. I, accordingly, condone the delay.

6.

On merit, I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex-parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. I note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected

Page 3 of 4

ITA No.1432/Srt/2025 Jacinta Luis Lopes party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of assessing officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Learned DR for the revenue, on the other hand, did not have any objection, if the matter is restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. The assessing officer will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to substantiate its case. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.

7.

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 01/06/2026.

Sd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member Surat Date: 01/06/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to :  The assessee  The Respondent  CIT  The CIT(A)  DR, ITAT, Surat  By order Guard File //True Copy// Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/P.S. ITAT, Surat

Page 4 of 4

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →