KETAN HITENDRAKUMAR KHATRI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 49/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 May 2025AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and the assessee claimed inadequate opportunities for hearing. Therefore, the case was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee is challenging additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of estimated income at 1% of turnover. The assessee also disputes the initiation of penalty proceedings and claims the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adequate opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunities for hearing to the assessee, and whether the additions and penalty proceedings were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA
For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT (DR)
Hearing: 30/04/2025Pronounced: 27/05/2025

O R D E R

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

1.

The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of even date 18/12/2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23.

,48 and 49/SRT/2025 Ketan Hitendrakumar Jhatri vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2022-23

2 2. Since the facts and issues involved in all these three appeals are identical, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. First, we shall take up as the lead case.

3. The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the leaned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.56,54,029/ on account of alleged Estimation of income 1 percent on turnover and income declared in Return of income, hence the Balance amount Rs.56,54,029/- (12824149-7170120) treated as income.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the leaned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty proceedings U/s. 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject. the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed ex-parte order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO.

5. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper.

6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.

4. At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) to submit that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is ex-parte of the assessee. The Ld.Counsel has further demonstrated that the Ld.CIT(A) had allegedly sent the notices of hearing on ,48 and 49/SRT/2025 Ketan Hitendrakumar Jhatri vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2022-23

3 e-mail of the assessee. He has further invited our attention to the relevant appeal (Form No.35) submitted before the Ld.CIT(A), wherein in response to relevant query “Whether notices/Communication may be sent on e-mail?”, the assessee had answered, “No”. The Ld.Counsel, therefore, has pleaded that the assessee had mentioned in Form No.35 that the notices may not be sent to him on e-mail, however, the Ld.CIT(A) sent the notices on e-mail, which did not come to the notice of the assessee and, therefore, the case of the assessee remained unrepresented before the Ld.CIT(A).

5.

Since the non-participation by the assessee in the appellate proceedings was not intentional, rather was due to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, therefore, in our view, the interests of justice will be well served, if the assessee is given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld.CIT(A).

6.

In view of this, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for decision afresh. The Ld.CIT(A) will serve notice of hearing through physical mode at the address provided by the assessee in Appeal Form i,e. Form-35. It is further observed that even the impugned order of the AO is an ex-parte order passed u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Under the circumstances, for just and proper decision of the case, it is directed that if the assessee will furnish any evidences or details before the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) will call for the remand report on such evidences/details, if furnished by the assessee, thereafter to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits in accordance with law.

,48 and 49/SRT/2025 Ketan Hitendrakumar Jhatri vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2022-23

7.

Since the facts and issues involved are identical in these two appeals, hence our findings given above in respect of will apply mutatis mutandis to these appeals also. The matter in these appeals is also restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for decision afresh in terms as indicated above.

8.

In the result, all the captioned three appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27 /05/2025.

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →