ABDUL IBRAHIM PATEL,BHARUCH vs. ITO WARD 1(4) BHARUCH (CURRENTLY, ITO WARD 1(1) BHARUCH), BHARUCH

PDF

ITA 630/SRT/2025Status: HeardITAT Surat08 October 2025AY 2017-18Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “SMC” SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 630/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vs. Abdul Ibrahim Patel, Kadri Travel, Near Water Tank, At and Post Zanor, Bharuch-392210. PAN NO. AFSPP 6042 A Appellant Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) for assessment year 2017-18. The grounds of appeal relate to additions made by the AO and levying of penal interest. The assessee failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) despite multiple notices, leading to an assessment under section 144.

Held

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) despite several notices. However, in the interest of substantive justice and to ensure the principles of natural justice are followed, the matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

Key Issues

Whether the assessee should be denied adjudication on merits due to procedural lapses, and if the matter should be restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

Sections Cited

69A, 234A, 234B, 144, 271(1)(b)

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

For Respondent: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DR

Hearing: 08/10/2025

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), Kochi [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds:

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Id. AO has erred in fact and in law in making an addition of Rs.6,83,000/- u/s 69A of the Act and raised a tax demand of Rs.7,91,418/- which needs to be deleted entirely 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Id. AO has erred in fact and in law in levying penal interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act totalling to Rs.2,63,800/- which deserves to be deleted in toto. 2. At the very outset, we note from the record that despite issuance of three separate notices as under by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed to cause any appearance or compliance before the said authority :

2.1 The chronology of such notices, as duly recorded, manifests that adequate and reasonable opportunities were afforded to the assessee to present its case; yet, none was availed of. We further observe that the assessment itself was framed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, i.e., under the best judgment procedure, owing to similar non-compliance during the assessment stage. Even before us, when queried, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not adduce any cogent explanation or reasonable cause for the persistent default in responding to the statutory notices either before the Assessing Officer or before the first appellate authority. Ordinarily, such repeated defaults would justify the imposition of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(b) or other allied provisions for non-compliance of notices. However, that issue not being before us, we refrain from expressing any conclusive opinion thereon.

2.2 Having regard, however, to the larger cause of substantive justice, we are of the considered view that an assessee should not be denied adjudication on merits merely for technical or procedural lapses, particularly when the matter has not been examined by the Ld. CIT(A) at all on factual or legal aspects. The principles of natural justice and fair play require that every litigant be given a meaningful opportunity to present its case before the competent authority.