VIRENDRA N KATARGAMWALA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(5), SURAT

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT Before: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member

ITA No: 1305/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16

Virendra N. Katargamwala, Vs ITO, 36, Varachha Road, Dholi Ward – 3(3)(5), Kui, Surat - 395006 Surat PAN: ACFPK2603N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee Represented by : Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA Revenue Represented by : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 30.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 16.06.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM:

I.T.A No.1305//SRT/2025/AY.2015-16 Page No 2 Virendra N. Katargamwala Officer in not allowing deduction of Rs. 26,44,250/- (index value Rs. 34,49,206/-) while calculating long term capital gain. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed ex-parte order and hence, the case may please be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal."

I.T.A No.1305//SRT/2025/AY.2015-16 Page No 3 Virendra N. Katargamwala appeal. The assessee submitted that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional and due to unavoidable circumstances, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time limit. 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue opposed the prayer for condonation of delay. 4. We have considered the preliminary issue and find that there is a delay of 28 days. We find that assessee has not deliberately filed the appeal late. The reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay would constitute ‘sufficient cause’ for delay in filing this appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income for AY 2015-16 on 30.03.2017, declaring total income of Rs.20,84,990/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A for Rs.1,33,092/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny assessment. During the year under consideration, the assessee has earned his share of profit from partnership firm. The assessee has also shown income from

I.T.A No.1305//SRT/2025/AY.2015-16 Page No 4 Virendra N. Katargamwala house property, capital gain and net agricultural income of Rs.10,00,140/- for tax rate purposes. After hearing the assessee, the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) made following additions: (i) Rs.36,49,206/- on account of capital gains and (ii) Rs.2,00,000/- on account of cash deposit. The AO assessed the total income of Rs.57,34,200/- as against the returned income of Rs.20,84,990/-. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, during the appellate proceedings before him, the assessee failed to submit any reply or explanations despite given several opportunities of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the judgements of Supreme Courts and High Courts in cases of (i) Nandramdas Dwarkadas, IR 1958 MP 260, (ii) Dr. P. Nalla Thampy vs. Shankar, 1984 (Supp.) SCC 63, (iii) New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242, (iv) CIT vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Ors., (1979) 10 CTR 354 (SC), (v) M/s Chemipol vs. UOI, Central Excise No.62 of 2009 (Bom.) and (vi) CIT vs. Gold Leaf Corporation Ltd., ITA No.798 of 2009 (Del) and held that preferring an appeal, means

I.T.A No.1305//SRT/2025/AY.2015-16 Page No 5 Virendra N. Katargamwala effectively pursuing it, confirmed the additions made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the appellant has preferred this appeal. It was submitted before us that the assessee could not appear before the lower authorities and failed to submit the necessary details due to unavoidable circumstances and requested for one more opportunity to explain its case before the AO. 8. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material availed on record. We are of the opinion that principles of natural justice demands that any modification/additions cannot be made without giving the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since, the impugned order was passed ex-parte, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of JAO for giving the appellant adequate opportunity of being heard to explain its case before him. The appellant is also directed to provide all documents and evidences before the JAO to explain its case without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

I.T.A No.1305//SRT/2025/AY.2015-16 Page No 6 Virendra N. Katargamwala 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced under the provisions of Rule 34 of IT(AT) Rules, 1963 on 16/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat Dated 16/06/2026 *Ranjan आदेश�ȧĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/ Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT 6. Guard file. By order/आदेशसे,

उप/सहायकपंजीकार आयकर\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ����, सूरत