JAYESHKUMAR NATVARLAL SARANG ,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(2) , SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 856/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 October 2026AY 2011-125 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's explanation and the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. The Tribunal also restored the matters to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue by restoring the appeals, and it was in line with the principles of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders, uninfluenced by the earlier ex-parte orders. The assessee was cautioned to remain vigilant and ensure participation in future hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to proceed according to law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jayeshkumar Natvarlal Sarang, filed three appeals (ITA Nos. 801/SRT/2025, 802/SRT/2025, and 856/SRT/2025) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Surat Bench. These appeals pertained to Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12 and 2012-13. ITA Nos. 801 and 802 were quantum appeals against assessment orders passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-1(3)(2), Surat, and subsequent orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi. ITA No. 856 was a penalty appeal against a penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the ITO and the subsequent order of the CIT(A). All appeals were filed belatedly. The assessee sought condonation of delay, citing sufficient cause.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation and the principles of substantial justice. 2. Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] should be set aside and the matters restored for fresh adjudication. Assessee's Arguments: The assessee contended that the ex-parte orders were passed due to non-prosecution on hearing dates, which was caused by bona fide reasons as the notices from the Ld. CIT(A) did not reach the assessee. The assessee requested that the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the matters be restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, offering to make an effective representation and seeking one more opportunity in the interest of justice. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others for a justice-oriented approach. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue's Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) did not oppose the prayer for restoration but submitted that the assessee had remained non-compliant during the first appeal proceedings, which led to the ex-parte orders. The Sr. DR requested that appropriate directions be issued to ensure strict compliance by the assessee upon restoration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 271(1)(c),Section 253(5)

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 Kishore Gheewala, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.10.2026Pronounced: 30.10.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत �ायपीठ, सूरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.801/SRT/2025 (A.Y :2011-12) ITA No.802/SRT/2025 (A.Y :2012-13) ITA No.856/SRT/2025 (A.Y :2011-12) Jayeshkumar Natvarlal Sarang, Income Tax Officer, C/o 101, Shriji Nivas, Ward 1(3)(2), A to Z Buld, Adajan, Surat, बनाम/ Opp. Dihraj Sons Athwagate, Gujarat – 395009 Vs. Surat Gujarat – 395001 (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: BLMPS1427D Assessee by Shri Kishore Gheewala, CA Revenue by Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07.10.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.10.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM:

The captioned three (3) appeals have been filed by same assessee, the details of these appeals are as under:

ITA No. 801/SRT/2025 is a Quantum-Appeal directed against the (i) order of first appeal dated 22.09.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of the assessment-order dated 05.12.2018 passed by learned ITO, Ward-1(3)(2), Surat [“Ld. AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s.

Page 1 of 5

ITA No.801/SRT/2025 (A.Y :2011-12) & Ors. Jayeshkumar Natvarlal Sarang 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] for assessment-year [“AY”] 2011-12.

ITA No. 802/SRT/2025 is a Quantum-Appeal directed against the (ii) order of first appeal dated 22.08.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A), which in turn arises out of the assessment-order dated 28.11.2019 passed by Ld. AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act for AY 2012-13.

(iii) ITA No. 856/SRT/2025 is a Penalty-Appeal directed against the order of first appeal dated 29.09.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A), which in turn arises out of the penalty-order dated 26.06.2019 passed by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2011-12.

2.

There appeals have been filed belatedly after expiry of statutory periods. The assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay; the same are held in case files. The averments made by assessee in applications were discussed with reference to the facts of these cases and the Ld. DR for revenue does not show any any objection if the bench condones delay and accordingly left it to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387

Page 2 of 5

ITA No.801/SRT/2025 (A.Y :2011-12) & Ors. Jayeshkumar Natvarlal Sarang 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. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.

3.

On merits, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed impugned orders as ex-parte due to non-prosecution by assessee on the dates of hearing but the non-prosecution was due to the bona fide reason that the notices sent by Ld. CIT(A) did not reach to assessee.

4.

With above submission, Ld. AR prayed that the impugned orders of first-appeals passed by Ld. CIT(A) be set aside. He submitted that the assessee is in his possession, all relevant details and documents and ready to make an effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). He prayed that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity be given to assessee by way of restoring these matters at the level of Ld. CIT(A). He acknowledged that the assessee shall definitely make a proper and effective representation before Ld. CIT(A).

5.

The Ld. DR for revenue, though not opposing the prayer of the assessee for restoration, submitted that the assessee had remained non- compliant during the proceedings of first-appeal, which constrained the Ld. CIT(A) to pass ex-parte orders. It was, therefore, submitted that while

Page 3 of 5

ITA No.801/SRT/2025 (A.Y :2011-12) & Ors. Jayeshkumar Natvarlal Sarang restoring the matter, appropriate directions may be issued to ensure strict compliance by the assessee.

6.

Considering the above submissions of parties; having regard to 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. CIT(A), we restore these matters to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) 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. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments failing which the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

7.

In result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 30/10/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER //True Copy// Surat िदनांक /Dated : 30/10/2026 Kishore/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A)

Page 4 of 5

ITA No.801/SRT/2025 (A.Y :2011-12) & Ors. Jayeshkumar Natvarlal Sarang (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order Digitally signed by HEMA KISHORE HEMA KISHORE JAKKA JAKKA Date: 2026.10.30 17:08:37 +05'30' UE COPYAssistant Registrar/Sr.PS Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Surat Bench, Surat

Page 5 of 5

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →