Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a cashier in a cooperative bank, filed his return of income for AY 2011-12. Later, a notice under section 148 was issued. The assessee could not appear before the AO and CIT(A) due to his father's severe medical condition and issues in obtaining transaction documents.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had reasonable cause for non-appearance before the lower authorities. It was noted that the transactions were alleged to be without the assessee's consent due to a broker's actions, and the assessee was also unavailable to provide directions.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee had reasonable cause for non-appearance before the lower authorities and if the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
Assessment Year: 2011-12 Kamlesh Kantilal Gandhi Vs ITO, Ward – 3(2)(6) C/203, Shiv Campus, HN Anavil Business Centre, Road, Adajan, Surat - Adajan Surat - 395007 395009 PAN – ABZPG2435K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Revenue by Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 22.03.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. At the very outset, we noticed that assessee was ex- parte before AO and Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR explained the circumstances because of which he could not appear before the lower authorities which are reproduced herein below:
Kamlesh Kantilal Gandhi, Surat. The facts of the case and contentions in respect thereof as raised by the appellant are discussed hereinafter in brief for the kind consideration of the Hon'ble Bench. 4.1 The appellant is an individual working as a cashier in a co- operative bank. 4.2 The return of income was filed by the appellant on 17-03- 2011 declaring Total Income Rs. 2,98,830/- from salary. 4.3 However, the appellant was in receipt of the notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29- 03-2018. 4.4 The appellant had e-filed his return of income in response to the aforesaid notice u/s. 148 on 15-11-2018 declaring total income of Rs. 2,98,830/ along with short term loss of Rs. 1,38,009/- and loss of Rs. 26,644/ owing to loss on account of derivative transactions. 4.5 Pursuant to the filing of return of income in response to notice u/s. 148, the learned ITO learned about the fact that the appellant had already vacated the address as available in their record and had shifted to another address. 4.6 The AR of the appellant had approached the learned ITO making her aware about the fact that aforesaid transaction was not an intentional indulgence of the appellant; but was on account of the mischief of the broker of entering into the said transaction without the consent of the appellant. The said fact gets substantiated since the appellant being a cashier in a bank was never available exclusively for giving directions for purchase and sale of the share/ derivative transactions so entered into and the broker was accordingly, carrying out the transactions as per his own whims and fancies. 4.7 Further, it may also be appreciated that the father of the appellant is suffering from a medical ailment since several years and during the currency of the re- opening assessments; his conditioned worsened to the extent that his father had lost his senses of passing urine and stool. The appellant being the sole bread earner of the family was not able to devote requisite time for the proceedings.
Kamlesh Kantilal Gandhi, Surat. 4.8 However, the appellant had also tried to get the details pertaining to the transactions in respect of the alleged penny stock company viz. CCL Inter; but couldn't get the same till the re-opening proceedings were concluded. 5. Thus, it was on account of his father's ailment and the unavailability of the required documents that the appellant could not comply and make the necessary submissions before the learned ITO in time.
The basic reason for non-appearance is contained in para 4.7, 4.8 & 5. However on the other hand Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that there was reasonable cause, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before AO and Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before AO. Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of AO for deciding the matter afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 09/10/2025 Sd/- Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT SANDEEP GOSAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat: Dated: 09/10/2025 KRK, Sr. PS. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T.