URMILABEN THAKORDAS SOPARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT
Facts
The assessee filed their original return of income on 04.01.2014. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, making additions for long-term capital gain and under section 50C. The CIT(A) upheld these additions as the assessee made no compliance.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's delay in filing the appeal was due to notices being sent to an incorrect email ID, preventing them from accessing the CIT(A)'s order. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 50C, 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
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. 917/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Urmilaben Thakordas ITO Sopariwala, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. New Civil 8/743, Hanuman Char Rasta, Vs. Hospital Majuragate, Gopipura, Surat-395001. Surat-395001. PAN NO. APRPS 5313 J Appellant Respondent
: Mr. Raj Shah, CA Assessee by Revenue by : Mr. Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 07/10/2025 : 30/10/2025 Date of pronouncement
ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) – 3 Delhi [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds:
Learned officer has erred in facts as well as in law while issuing the impugned order. 2. Learned officer has violated the principle of natural justice while issuing the impugned order.
ITA No. 917/SRT/2025 2 Urmilaben Thakordas Spariwala Urmilaben Thakordas Spariwala
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, substitute The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, substitute The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, substitute and/OR DLEETE all OR any of the grounds of appeal on OR and/OR DLEETE all OR any of the grounds of appeal on OR and/OR DLEETE all OR any of the grounds of appeal on OR before the final hearing. before the final hearing. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed facts of the case are that the assessee filed original return of income on 04.01.2014 declaring total income at original return of income on 04.01.2014 declaring total income at original return of income on 04.01.2014 declaring total income at Rs.7,27,040/-. Subsequently, in view of information, the Assessing . Subsequently, in view of information, the Assessing . Subsequently, in view of information, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, Officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Income 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on t ‘the Act’) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on t ‘the Act’) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2018. The reassessment was completed on 14.12.2019 31.03.2018. The reassessment was completed on 14.12.2019 31.03.2018. The reassessment was completed on 14.12.2019 wherein two additions wherein two additions were made by the Assessing Officer, were made by the Assessing Officer, firstly, for long term capital gain of Rs.29,40,658/ for long term capital gain of Rs.29,40,658/- and secondly and secondly, addition u/s 50C of the Act amounting to Rs.7,36,213/ the Act amounting to Rs.7,36,213/-.
On further appeal, despite issuing various notices on the On further appeal, despite issuing various notices on the On further appeal, despite issuing various notices on the registered e-mail ID as well as on the e mail ID as well as on the e-filing portal filing portal, no compliance was made on the part of the assessee and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was made on the part of the assessee and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was made on the part of the assessee and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition m upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer vide his ade by the Assessing Officer vide his impugned order.
3.1 Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drawn out attention Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drawn out attention Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drawn out attention to the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The to the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The to the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. Counsel submitted that notices were issued on the e-mail ID Ld. Counsel submitted that notices were issued on the e Ld. Counsel submitted that notices were issued on the e other than the e-mail ID mentioned in the form No. 35 and mail ID mentioned in the form No. 35 and mail ID mentioned in the form No. 35 and therefore, assessee was herefore, assessee was not having access to the order of the Ld. not having access to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and which resulted in delay in filing appeal by 251 days. CIT(A) and which resulted in delay in filing appeal CIT(A) and which resulted in delay in filing appeal According to the Ld. Counsel there are bona the Ld. Counsel there are bonafide reasons and fide reasons and assessee is having a strong case on merit. In support of the In support of the
ITA No. 917/SRT/2025 3 Urmilaben Thakordas Spariwala Urmilaben Thakordas Spariwala
application seeking condonation of delay, the learned Counsel application seeking condonation of delay, the learned Counsel application seeking condonation of delay, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon the affidavit of the assessee placed reliance upon the affidavit of the assessee dated 07.10.2025 dated 07.10.2025 explaining the reasons which, according to him, constitute a explaining the reasons which, according to him, constitute a explaining the reasons which, according to him, constitute a “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitat “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitat Act, 1963, as applicable to proceedings under the Income-tax Act. Act, 1963, as applicable to proceedings under the Income Act, 1963, as applicable to proceedings under the Income
We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. In our opinion, the assessee was prevented the material on record. In our opinion, the assessee was prevented the material on record. In our opinion, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for non by sufficient cause for non-filing the appeal on time an filing the appeal on time and therefore, same is admitted for adjudication. same is admitted for adjudication.
We have heard rival submission of the parties merit of the We have heard rival submission of the parties merit of the We have heard rival submission of the parties merit of the issue also. We find that assessee could not represent before the Ld. issue also. We find that assessee could not represent before the Ld. issue also. We find that assessee could not represent before the Ld. CIT(A) mainly for the reason that notices were sent on the e-mail CIT(A) mainly for the reason that notices were sent on the e CIT(A) mainly for the reason that notices were sent on the e other than the e-mail mail ID mentioned in Form No. 35 mentioned in Form No. 35. On the same ground, we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal also. In we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal also. In we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal also. In view of above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that view of above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that view of above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee should be provided one more opportunity for the assessee should be provided one more opportunity for the assessee should be provided one more opportunity for matter before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set presenting his matter before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set matter before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter back to him for deciding afresh after providing adequate the matter back to him for deciding afresh after providing adequate the matter back to him for deciding afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
ITA No. 917/SRT/2025 4 Urmilaben Thakordas Spariwala Urmilaben Thakordas Spariwala
In the result, the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced by way display o Order pronounced by way display of result on notice board f result on notice board on 30/10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. /10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. /10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963.
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
