KAMLESH NAGINBHAI LAD,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(6), SURAT
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex parte by the Ld. CIT(A) for alleged non-compliance. The assessee contends that they had filed online submissions within the stipulated period, which were not considered by the Ld. CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions and evidence, thereby breaching the principles of natural justice and statutory mandate. The order was passed without due appreciation of the materials on record.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without considering the assessee's submissions and evidence, thus violating principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
250, 69A, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH “SMC” SURAT
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “SMC” SURAT
BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
ITA No. 589/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Kamlesh Naginbhai Lad, ITO Ward-3(2)(6) 59 Yogeshvar Park, Near Rekha Room No. 109, 1st Floor, Income Park, Adajan, Hajira Road, Vs. Tax Office, Anavil Business Surat-395009. Centre, Adajan, Surat-395007. PAN NO. AAQPL 7195 K Appellant Respondent
Assessee by : Mr. Esmayeel, Saherwala, CA Revenue by : Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DR
: 07/10/2025 Date of Hearing : 30/10/2025 Date of pronouncement
ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 31.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-6, Chennai [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds:
(1) That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-6, Chennai erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without considering the online submission of Paper Book-1 dated 31/03/2025 filed by the appellant in response to the notice under section 250 dated 24/03/2025, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and causing grave prejudice to the appellant.
ITA No. 589/SRT/2025 ITA No. 589/SRT/2025 2 Kamlesh Naginbhai Lad Kamlesh Naginbhai Lad
(2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) in law, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-6, CHENNAI is not justified 6, CHENNAI is not justified in passing the appellate order U/s.250 of the Act with a in passing the appellate order U/s.250 of the Act with a in passing the appellate order U/s.250 of the Act with a predetermined mind before awaiting the expiry of due date predetermined mind before awaiting the expiry of due date predetermined mind before awaiting the expiry of due date granted to assessee b granted to assessee by the former in his notice thereby y the former in his notice thereby rendering the appellate proceedings void ab initio for rendering the appellate proceedings void ab initio for rendering the appellate proceedings void ab initio for failure to follow due process. failure to follow due process. (3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and (3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and (3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) in law, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-6, Chennai erred in 6, Chennai erred in upholding the addition of Rs upholding the addition of Rs. 1,99,000/- made by the made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Act without Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Act without Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Act without appreciating that appellant is a regular taxpayer with a appreciating that appellant is a regular taxpayer with a appreciating that appellant is a regular taxpayer with a documented history of substantial income in previous documented history of substantial income in previous documented history of substantial income in previous assessment years and out of his accumulated savings assessment years and out of his accumulated savings assessment years and out of his accumulated savings from disclosed from disclosed sources of income the amount was deposit sources of income the amount was deposit into the Bank. into the Bank. (4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and (4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and (4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) in law, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-6, CHENNAI has erred in 6, CHENNAI has erred in charging the tax as per the provisions of Section 115BBE charging the tax as per the provisions of Section 115BBE charging the tax as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. 2. At the very outset, the At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the submitted that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] has dismissed the appeal [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] has dismissed the appeal [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] has dismissed the appeal ex parte, without duly considering the online written submission ex parte, without duly considering the online written submission ex parte, without duly considering the online written submission filed by the assessee in the form of a e assessee in the form of a paper book dated paper book dated 31.03.2025, which had been uploaded on the Departmental which had been uploaded on the Departmental which had been uploaded on the Departmental portal in response to the notice dated portal in response to the notice dated 25.03.2025.
Upon a careful perusal of the record, we find that the Upon a careful perusal of the record, we find that the Upon a careful perusal of the record, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal summarily on the ground of has dismissed the appeal summarily on the ground of has dismissed the appeal summarily on the ground of non-compliance, holding the assessee to be in default for failure compliance, holding the assessee to be in default for failure compliance, holding the assessee to be in default for failure to respond to the notices issued in the course of appellate to respond to the notices issued in the course of appellate to respond to the notices issued in the course of appellate proceedings.
Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee Ld. Counsel for the assesseehas produced a has produced a copy of the said online submission, as placed in the paper book, y of the said online submission, as placed in the paper book, y of the said online submission, as placed in the paper book,
ITA No. 589/SRT/2025 ITA No. 589/SRT/2025 3 Kamlesh Naginbhai Lad Kamlesh Naginbhai Lad
evidencing that detailed submissions were, in fact, filed within evidencing that detailed submissions were, in fact, filed within evidencing that detailed submissions were, in fact, filed within the prescribed period through the official portal. On a holistic the prescribed period through the official portal. On a holistic the prescribed period through the official portal. On a holistic consideration of the record, we find merit in the contention tha consideration of the record, we find merit in the contention tha consideration of the record, we find merit in the contention that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adverted to or considered such submission has not adverted to or considered such submission has not adverted to or considered such submission while adjudicating the appeal, and the order has been passed while adjudicating the appeal, and the order has been passed while adjudicating the appeal, and the order has been passed without due appreciation of the materials and contentions placed without due appreciation of the materials and contentions placed without due appreciation of the materials and contentions placed on record.
It is trite law that the first appellate authorit It is trite law that the first appellate authorit It is trite law that the first appellate authority, being a quasi-judicial forum, is statutorily obliged under judicial forum, is statutorily obliged under Section 250(6) Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 tax Act, 1961 to dispose of the appeal to dispose of the appeal by a speaking order, after granting the assessee an effective after granting the assessee an effective after granting the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard and after considering all evidences opportunity of being heard and after considering all evidences opportunity of being heard and after considering all evidences and submissions made before it. The duty to render a reasoned nd submissions made before it. The duty to render a reasoned nd submissions made before it. The duty to render a reasoned decision is an essential facet of the principle of decision is an essential facet of the principle of decision is an essential facet of the principle of audi alteram partem, which forms the bedrock of the concept of which forms the bedrock of the concept of which forms the bedrock of the concept of natural justice.
Guided by these judicial principles, and having regard to the Guided by these judicial principles, and having regard to the Guided by these judicial principles, and having regard to the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained, having been cannot be sustained, having been rendered in breach of the statutory mandate and principles of in breach of the statutory mandate and principles of in breach of the statutory mandate and principles of natural justice. We, therefore, We, therefore, set aside the impugned order an the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to with a direction to adjudicate the appeal adjudicate the appeal afresh, after duly considering the after duly considering the submissions and evidences filed by the assessee and after submissions and evidences filed by the assessee and after submissions and evidences filed by the assessee and after
ITA No. 589/SRT/2025 ITA No. 589/SRT/2025 4 Kamlesh Naginbhai Lad Kamlesh Naginbhai Lad
affording adequate opportunity of hearing in accordance with affording adequate opportunity of hearing in accordance with affording adequate opportunity of hearing in accordance with law.
Accordingly, Ground No. 1 Ground No. 1 of the appeal is of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, and since the matter has been restored for , and since the matter has been restored for , and since the matter has been restored for fresh consideration, the remaining grounds on merits are not fresh consideration, the remaining grounds on merits are not fresh consideration, the remaining grounds on merits are not adjudicated at this stage, being rendered adjudicated at this stage, being rendered academic and academic and consequential.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules on 30/10/2025. Sd/- - Sd/ Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat; Dated: 30/10/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. (on Tour) Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Surat ITAT, Surat
