KESAR INFRA,VAPI vs. ITO, WARD-7, VAPI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restoring the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to the non-representation of the assessee, which occurred because the hearing notices were sent to an incorrect email address. The Tribunal considered the principle of natural justice and found that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by restoring the matter. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and ensure participation in hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. Other grounds raised by the assessee were not adjudicated at this stage as the matter was remanded. The ratio decidendi is that an ex-parte order passed due to non-service of notices at the correct address violates principles of natural justice and warrants restoration.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Kesar Infra, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2023-24 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,21,00,740/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, making an aggregate disallowance of Rs. 42,59,114/- from various claimed expenses. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi. The Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order, upholding the AO's order as the assessee did not appear. The assessee, aggrieved by this ex-parte order, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Surat Bench.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed an ex-parte order, and hence the case may be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO, as per Ground No. 6 of the appeal, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Assessee's Contentions: - The Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order because the notices of hearing were sent to an incorrect email address (dharmenparekh@gmail.com) instead of the one provided by the assessee in Form No. 35 (kesarinfra150@gmail.com). This non-service of notices at the proper address led to the assessee's absence and the ex-parte order. - The Ld. AO made an ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 42,59,114/- (10% of multiple expenses). The assessee possesses all relevant details and documents for these expenses and is ready to make an effective representation before the AO. Therefore, the matter should be remanded to the AO for verification. Revenue's Contentions: - The Ld. DR did not oppose the prayer for restoration but requested appropriate directions for strict compliance by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश / O R D E R Per, B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by the order of first-appeal dated 09.09.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of the assessment-order dated 22.03.2025 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2023-24, the assessee has filed this appeal.
The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-firm filed its return of income of AY 2023-24 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,21,00,740/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and the Ld. AO issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) which were partly complied with by the assessee. Ultimately, the Ld. AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) after making an aggregate disallowance of Rs. 42,59,114/- out of various expenses claimed by assessee as deduction in computing business income. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first- appeal whereupon the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order due to non- representation by assessee and upheld AO’s order with the result that the assessee did not get any relief. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in present appeal before us.
The assessee has raised various grounds of appeal in Form No. 36. However, during hearing, the learned Representatives confined their submissions to following Ground No. 6 only:
“6. 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.” 4. Apropos to Ground No. 6, the Ld. AR for assessee at first submitted that in present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order dismissing assessee’s first appeal and merely approving the order of Ld. AO, although due to non-representation by assessee on the dates of hearing but the non- representation occurred due to the bona fide reason as the Ld. CIT(A) has served notices of hearing on e-mail id” dharmenparekh@gmail.com whereas the assessee mentioned email id: kesarinfra150@gmail.com in the space provided in Form No. 35. Therefore, due to non-service of notices at proper email address, the assessee could not attend hearings fixed by Ld. CIT(A), which has led to the passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order of first-appeal passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside.
Ld. AR thereafter drew us to the assessment-order and demonstrated that the Ld. AO has made impugned disallowance of Rs. 42,59,114/- on ad hoc basis of 10% of multiple expenses aggregating to Rs. 4,25,91,140/- claimed by assessee in P&L A/c. However, the assessee is having all relevant details and documents of the expenses and ready to make an effective representation before Ld. AO. Therefore, it would be better to remand this matter to the file of Ld. AO to enable a meritorious verification of assessee’s documents and thereafter determining correct taxable income in accordance with law. Ld. AR acknowledged that the assessee shall definitely make a proper and effective representation before Ld. AO.
The Ld. DR for revenue, though not opposing the prayer of the assessee for restoration, submitted that while restoring the matter, appropriate directions may be issued to ensure strict compliance by the assessee.
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 matter is restored at the level of Ld. AO, we restore this matter 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 an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. 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. Ground No. 6 is allowed accordingly.
Since we have remanded this matter to the file of Ld. AO for a fresh adjudication, no further adjudication of other grounds raised in Form No. 36 is required from us at this stage.
In result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 28/10/2026
Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER //True Copy// Surat िदनांक /Dated : 28/10/2026 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Surat Bench, Surat HEMA Digitally signed by HEMA KISHORE KISHORE JAKKA Date: 2026.10.29 JAKKA 16:59:40 +05'30'
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026