NADIM NAJIRBHAI PATEL,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), BHARUCH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 640/SRT/2025Status: HeardITAT Surat09 October 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (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 noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A). To meet the ends of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after one more opportunity of hearing. A cost of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed on the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed challenging an order of the CIT(A). The assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal due to non-appearance. The representative for the assessee appeared but did not hold a Power of Attorney.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits due to ex-parte proceedings and non-appearance of the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.10.2025Pronounced: 09.10.2025

Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nadim Najirbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Rathod Falia Bharuch– Vs Ward – 1(5), Bharuch 392 130 Income Tax Office, PAN – CKQPP 9335 K Harikunj, Bharuch– 356 069. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Revenue by Shri J.K. Chandnani, 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 dated 24.05.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeal Addl/JCIT(A)-7, Kolkata for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Shri Hardik Raval appeared on behalf of assessee and seeks adjournment. However, we notice from the record that he is not holding any Power of Attorney on behalf of assessee. Therefore, his presence cannot be marked. On (AY: 17-18) Nadim J Patel going through the case file, we notice that assessee was ex parte before Ld. CIT(A) and therefore ex parte order was passed by Ld.CIT(A) thereby dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account of non-appearance.

3.

Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the grounds raised in the present appeal, in our view, the interest of justice would be met in case the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the same on merits after providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to set aside the order and restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for deciding same afresh on merits. Needless to mention after providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Since the assessee had not co-operated before Ld. CIT(A), therefore a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) is imposed upon the assessee, which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister’s Relief Funds within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and a copy of the receipt shall be placed before Ld.CIT(A) and thereafter Ld. CIT(A) shall proceed to decide the same on merits. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on unnecessary grounds and shall co-operate during appellate proceedings for decide the same expeditiously.

(AY: 17-18) Nadim J Patel 4. Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) is in no way be construed as having any expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by Ld.CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →