DAUDBHAI JAMALBHAI AGLODIYA,BANASKANTHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PALANPUR, PALANPUR, BANASKANTHA

ITA 1328/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 September 2026AY 2023-247 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dr. Daudbhai Jamalbhai Aglodiya, a retired PSU employee and senior citizen, filed his return for AY 2023-2024 declaring an income of INR 6,54,360/-. His case was selected for scrutiny, and notices were sent to his official email ID, which had been deactivated post-retirement. The assessee, residing abroad, was unaware of these proceedings. Consequently, the Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144/144B on 21.03.2025, making an addition of INR 34,58,049/- by disallowing exemptions under Section 10(10) and 10(10AA), and deductions under Chapter VI-A. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 66 days, which was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) without adjudicating on merits.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned. The Tribunal noted that the statutory notices were sent to an official email address that had been deactivated after the assessee's retirement, and the assessee was residing outside India. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Section 249(3) of the Act to advance substantial justice. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reliance on Lava International Ltd. v. CBDT misplaced as that case dealt with Section 119, not Section 249(3). Therefore, the Tribunal overturned the CIT(A)'s decision and condoned the delay. Regarding the ex-parte assessment, the Tribunal noted that it was framed without considering departmental/employer records like Form 16 and Form 26AS. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned additions and restored the entire assessment to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file all relevant submissions and update contact details, and the Assessing Officer was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Grounds 1 and 2 were allowed, and Grounds 3 to 6 were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned under Section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the assessee's circumstances and the revenue's contention regarding lack of documentary evidence and extraordinary circumstances. - Assessee's Contention: The delay was due to non-receipt of notices and the order because of deactivation of the registered email ID post-retirement, coupled with being a senior citizen and residing abroad, leading to genuine unawareness. The CIT(A) mechanically rejected the condonation application without appreciating the factual background and applying a rigid standard contrary to the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. - Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144/144B of the Act, without effective service of notices and without considering departmental/employer records, violates the principles of natural justice and is legally sustainable. - Assessee's Contention: The assessment was completed ex-parte due to non-service of notices, depriving the assessee of an opportunity to participate. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds of delay instead of addressing this fundamental defect and adjudicating on merits. The Assessing Officer made additions without proper inquiry or material, presuming non-compliance and lack of interest, which is contrary to best judgment assessment principles. - Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 249(2),Section 249(3),Section 10(10),Section 10(10AA)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the Order, dated 25/01/2026, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissedthe appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 21/03/2025, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144of the Income Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2023-2024. 2. Delay of 16 days in filing appeal the present appeal is condoned accepting the explanation offered

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →