SHARDABEN DHANJIBHAI SAVANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(4), SURAT

ITA 386/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 November 2025AY 2021-226 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 385/SRT/2025, noting the revenue's lack of serious objection. Regarding the ex-parte order by the NFAC, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea that notices were not received at the physical address mentioned in Form-35, despite being sent via email. Observing that the Assessing Officer (AO) and NFAC issued notices but the assessee did not comply, the Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be met by re-adjudicating the issue afresh by the AO, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund within two weeks. This order sets aside the CIT(A)'s order and remits the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish additional evidence. Consequently, the grounds of appeal in ITA No. 385/SRT/2025 were allowed for statistical purposes. For ITA No. 386/SRT/2025, as the quantum additions were restored to the AO, the penalty under section 271AAC(1) was also restored for fresh adjudication, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. For ITA No. 387/SRT/2025, the Tribunal noted the penalty was for non-compliance due to a tax consultant's mistake. It directed the AO to impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 271(1)(d), deleting penalties for two defaults and imposing for one, thus partly allowing the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shardaben Dhanjibihai Savani, filed three appeals (ITA Nos. 385 to 387/SRT/2025) for Assessment Year 2021-22 against orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). ITA No. 385/SRT/2025 challenges an unexplained addition in the quantum assessment. ITA No. 386/SRT/2025 pertains to a penalty under section 271A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices during assessment proceedings, completed ex-parte under section 144 r.w.s 144B. ITA No. 387/SRT/2025 concerns a penalty under section 271(1)(d). The assessee's return declared Rs. 4,82,080, but the assessment was completed with an addition of Rs. 1,42,08,480, resulting in assessed income of Rs. 1,46,90,560 due to non-compliance with several notices. The appeals were clubbed due to being interconnected.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should condone the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 385/SRT/2025, considering the assessee's explanation of miscommunication with her Authorized Representative. 2. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the NFAC in ITA No. 385/SRT/2025 should be set aside to grant the assessee an opportunity to present her case, based on the plea that notices were not received physically as per Form-35 instructions, and to uphold principles of natural justice. 3. Whether the penalty levied under section 271AAC(1) in ITA No. 386/SRT/2025, which was an ex-parte order, should be restored for fresh adjudication after the quantum issue is decided. 4. Whether the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(d) in ITA No. 387/SRT/2025 should be deleted or reduced, considering the assessee's submission that the non-compliance was due to a mistake by her tax consultant and that subsequent compliance was made. Assessee's Contentions: - For ITA No. 385/SRT/2025: The assessee argued that she did not receive physical notices from the NFAC as specified in Form-35, leading to her inability to attend appellate proceedings. She sought an opportunity to present her case based on principles of natural justice. The delay in filing was attributed to miscommunication with the Authorized Representative. - For ITA No. 387/SRT/2025: The assessee contended that the penalty under section 271(1)(d) was due to a mistake by her tax consultant and that she made subsequent compliance, suggesting the penalty should be imposed for only one default. Revenue's Contentions: - For ITA No. 385/SRT/2025: The revenue argued that the assessment order was ex-parte, the assessee did not cooperate, and failed to appear before the appellate authority despite opportunities. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed, and the concurrent findings of lower authorities should not be interfered with.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(1),Section 250,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 271A(1)(d),Section 271AAC(1),Section 271(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

orarnr attetta aftreaxn, axa ~aais, Pa IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER arr atta H./ITA Nos. 385 to 387/SRT/2025 (AY 2021-22) (Physical hearing) Shardaben Dhanjibihai Savani Assessment Unit Income-tax 74-75, 3" Floor Om Industries-8, Department juri ictional AO/ Umbhel Road, Parabgam, Kamrej, ary Income Tax Officer, Surat-394 101 Vs Ward-2(3)(4) Surat, Aaykar [PAN : KIYPS 3244 C] Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 ardenelf/ Appellant weet Respondent Prafftdt #1 sik a /Assessee by Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA Weed SG six S /Revenue by Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-DR | Aare wT ARTG/Date of hearing 15.09.2025 SUIT Ht ARG/Date of pronouncement | 28.11.2025

Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act

PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Captioned three appeals filed by the assessee, pertaining to same Assessment

Year (AY), that is, 2021-22, are directed against the separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/ Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC”], under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ref

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 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →