ATUL RAMESHCHANDRA LOKHANDWALA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 212/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 July 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI T.R.SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it noted that the assessee failed to respond to notices leading to the ex-parte order. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and directed the JAO to pass a fresh assessment order, giving the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte appellate order. There was a delay of 199 days in filing the appeal due to miscommunication of email addresses. The assessee failed to respond to various notices, resulting in an ex-parte assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal and to grant a fresh opportunity for hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Hearing: 02/07/2025Pronounced: 16/07/2025

(Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA Revenue by : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 02/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 16/07/2025 O R D E R

PER T.R.SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the ex-parte appellate order dated 07/06/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] arising out of the assessment order passed under section143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) relating to the Assessment Year (AY) 2016- 17.

2.

The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 199 days in filing the appeal. The assessee explained that in Form No.35, the assessee

2 mentioned jailokhandwala@gmail.com as the communication e-mail address. However, the ex-parte appellate order has been delivered to the e-mail IDs, i.e. atullokhandwala@shahgopani.com and shahgopani@rediffmail.com, which are belonged to his previous Consultant. Thus, the delay of 199 days in filing the above appeal. Therefore, the delay in filing the above appeal is hereby condoned.

3.

However, perusal of the assessment order makes it clear that the assessee failed to response to the various notices which has resulted in passing the ex-parte assessment order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities with a direction to the JAO to pass a fresh assessment order by giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, that the assessee should make use of this final opportunity of hearing without any fail and submit all the necessary documents before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to finalize the assessment.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16/07/2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →