KAMLESH RANCHHODBHAI PATEL L/H OF LATE RANCHHODBHAI JAGABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1160/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 June 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principles of substantial justice over technical considerations. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities due to non-representation by the deceased assessee. The appeals were filed with a delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals should be condoned and whether the ex-parte assessment orders should be set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Akshay M. Modi, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 22/06/2026Pronounced: 29/06/2026

आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

The captioned two (2) appeals have been filed by assessee challenging two (2) separate orders of first-appeal, both dated 22.08.2023 and passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders dated 04.12.2018 and 11.12.2019 passed by learned ITO, Ward-2(2)(4), Surat [“Ld. AO”] u/s

Page 1 of 6

Late Ranchhodbhai Jagabhai Patel ITA Nos. 1159 & 1160/SRT/2025 – AYs. 2011-12 & 2012-13

5.

Ld. AR thereafter submitted that considering the averments made in above application, the filing-delay may be condoned. Further, the orders passed by both of the lower authorities are ex-parte for non-representation by deceased assessee. That, in the first AY 2011-12, the Ld. AO has made

Page 3 of 6

Late Ranchhodbhai Jagabhai Patel ITA Nos. 1159 & 1160/SRT/2025 – AYs. 2011-12 & 2012-13

Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 holding that whenever “substantial justice” and “technical considerations” are opposed to each other, the cause of “substantial justice” must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach, we are inclined to condone the filing delays in present appeals.

8.

Further, having regard to nature of additions made by Ld. AO, the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matters are restored at the level of Ld. AO, we restore these matters to the file of Ld. AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The Ld. AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by his earlier orders. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by Ld. AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments failing which the Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

9.

Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 29/06/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat

Page 5 of 6

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →