SAMIR RAZAK GHADIALI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte appellate order. The delay in filing the appeal was 327 days, attributed to hearing notices being sent to an incorrect email address of a former tax consultant. The assessee claimed the previous tax consultant did not inform them of the hearing notices.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 327 days in filing the appeal, acknowledging the service of hearing notices to a wrong email ID. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment order was ex-parte.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders should be set aside.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (HYBRID HEARING) Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Member
ITA No: 248/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12
Samir Razak Ghadiali, The ITO, B-1304 Roayal Heritage, Ward-2(3)(8), Opp Sultania Gymkhana, Vs Surat Nr. Causeway Circle Gorat Rander, Surat-395009 PAN: ABDPG4503E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA Revenue Represented: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 02-07-2025 Date of pronouncement : 30-07-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the exparte appellate order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nagpur arising out of the exparte assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12.
I.T.A No. 248//SRT/2025 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Samir Razak Ghadialii vs. ITO
The registry has noted that there is a delay of 327 days in filing the above appeal. The assessee by way of Affidavit submitted that in the appeal memo in Form No. 35 filed before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee clearly mentioned communication email ID as srshethtax@gmail.com. However Ld. Addl.CIT(A) issued hearing notices to the email ID namely dpsopariwala@gmail.com which was belonged to the assessee’s previous Tax Consultant, who has not informed the hearing notices, which has resulted in passing the exparte appellate order by Ld. Addl.CIT(A).
2.1. In support of the same, the assessee produced Form No. 35 filed before Addl.CIT(A) and copies of the email hearing notices sent to former Tax Consultant email ID. Thus the assessee pleaded one more opportunity be given to him by setting aside the order passed by the lower authorities.
Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue could not dispute the above facts and service of hearing notices to a wrong email ID. Thus we are satisfied with the delay of 327 days in filing the above appeal and the delay is hereby condoned. However the assessment order also being an exparte order passed u/s. 144 of the Act, we deem it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to pass order on merits by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee should cooperate by filing all necessary details, documents before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order on merits.
I.T.A No. 248//SRT/2025 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 Samir Razak Ghadialii vs. ITO
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 30-07-2025
Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 30/07/2025 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // TRUE COPY // उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, सूरत
I.T.A No. 248//SRT/2025 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 4 Samir Razak Ghadialii vs. ITO
