ADITYA PROHOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1162/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 June 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Given the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The assessee was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs for securing a proper opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order from the CIT(A), which arose from a reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 for AY 2017-18. A 234-day delay in filing the appeal was attributed to a former accountant, and the appeal challenged an addition for alleged "on-money" paid on property purchased in 2012.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and if the ex-parte appellate order should be set aside to allow merits of the reassessment addition (related to on-money payment) to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aditya Prohouse Private The ITO, Limited Ward-1(1)(1), 402, Sheel Complex, Vs Ahmedabad Nr. Mithakali Under Bridge, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Gujarat PAN: AAJCA4954B (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri M. K. Patel, A.R. Revenue Represented: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 25-06-2025 Date of pronouncement : 30-06-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the exparte appellate order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18.

A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 2 Aditya Prohouse Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO

2.

The registry has noted that there is a delay of 234 days in filing the above appeal. The assessee explained that the e-mail communication of the Accountant was shown in Form No. 35. Since that Accountant resigned the job, the e-mail communications were not received by the assessee which has resulted in passing exparte appellate order. However on merits of the case, there cannot be any addition on account of payment of on-money on the purchase of property which were registered in the year 2012. Thus requested to condone the delay and set-aside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

3.

Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue has no serious objection in condoning the delay of 234 days. Thus the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Since the appellate order being an exparte order and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set-aside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same on merits by imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by the assessee to the I.T. Department within two weeks of receipt of copy of this order. On production of receipt for payment of cost, Ld. CIT(A) give proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee should cooperate by filing all necessary details and written submission before Ld. CIT(A) to pass order on merits of the case.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30-06-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 Aditya Prohouse Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →