KARNAVATI DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD
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 held that due to the incorrect email ID used for communication, the assessee was unaware of the appellate proceedings. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside to provide the assessee with another opportunity.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was filed against an ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee claimed that notices were sent to an incorrect email ID, making them unaware of the proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is valid when the assessee was not properly notified and denied an opportunity to be heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE
O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R PER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE PER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT:- PRESIDENT Delay condoned. Delay condoned. Delay condoned. Delay condoned.
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short), relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18.
The assessee has raised the following grounds :
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex-parte order without discussing grounds on merits.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that assessee was unaware of several hearing notices, as the same were issued to the email vasudev.tulip@gmail.com, ID whereas the email ID mentioned in Form-35 for communication of notices was hardikvora.ca@gmail.com.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of reduction of WIP amounting to Rs.2,48,11,928/- as to income of assessee.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of entire credit entries in the bank amounting to Rs. 13,15,000/- as unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming order u/s 144 of the Act without considering that the same is passed without considering submission of assessee 7. It is prayed that order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) may please be quashed.”
The assessee, through various grounds, i.e. Ground Nos. 1-4, has challenged the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) and also the additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Act, i.e. additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of reduction in WIP amounting to Rs. 2.48 crore and unexplained bank credits u/s. 69A of the Act amounting to Rs. 13.15 lakh.
During the course of hearing, the assessee submitted that the notices from NFAC were sent to an incorrect email ID i.e. vasudev.tulip@gmail.com instead of the one mentioned in Form-35 i.e. hardikvora.ca@gmail.com. Due to this mismatch, the assessee remained unaware of the appellate proceedings. An affidavit and portal screenshots were filed in support. Considering the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A), and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present its case. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh, after providing due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the proceedings without fail.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order The order is The order The order isis is pronounced i pronounced i pronounced in pronounced i n n the n the the open the open open Court open Court Court on Court on on 22 on 22 22.09.202 22 .202 .2025. .202
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
