NITINKUMAR RAJENDRAKUMAR MODI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(3), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 553/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 November 2025AY 2015-16Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)1 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 of 313 days and set aside the ex-parte appellate order. The CIT(A) was directed to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the case on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte appellate order. There was a delay of 313 days in filing the appeal, attributed to incorrect email communication for hearing notices. The assessee requested an opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal and provide another opportunity for hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Nitinkumar Income Tax Officer Rajendrakumar Modi Ward-1(2)(3), 5011, Ambaji Textile Vs Surat Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002 PAN: AVOPM9676P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri P M Jagasheth, CA Revenue Represented: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 12-11-2025 Date of pronouncement : 14 -11-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the exparte appellate order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16.

A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 2 Nitinkumar Rajendrakumar Modii vs. ITO

2.

The registry has noted that there is delay of 313 days in filing the above appeal. The assessee stated that in Form No. 35, in Column No. 17, he has given the email address of surendragandhi@gmail.com but the hearing notices were not sent in the email address which has resulted in not appearing before Ld. CIT(A) and also the delay of 313 days in filing the above appeal. Thus the assessee requested one more opportunity of hearing be given to the assessee by condoning the delay.

3.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee is prepared to file all required details before Ld. CIT(A) if one more opportunity be given to the assessee.

4.

Recording the submissions of the assessee Counsel, the delay of 313 days in filing the above appeal is hereby condoned and exparte appellate order is hereby set-aside with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the case on merits. Needless to say, the assessee should make use of this final opportunity and produce all necessary details before Ld. CIT(A) to pass order on merits of the case.

5.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →