UMESHBHAI MANJIBHAI KOSHIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD- 3(2)(4), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1346/SRT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 May 2025AY 2011-12Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 117 days. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and directed that a fresh opportunity of hearing be given to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The assessee's counsel submitted that there was a delay of 117 days in filing the appeal due to miscommunication regarding the email ID for hearing notices.

What were the issues?

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal and setting aside of the ex-parte order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147

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

Umeshbhai Manjibhai Income Tax Officer Koshiya Ward-3(2)(4), Surat A-401, Silver Stone Hills, Vs Singanpore Dabholi Link Road, Siganpore, Surat-395004 PAN: AUAPK1026A (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri P M Jagasheth, CA Revenue Represented: Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 05-05-2025 Date of pronouncement : 07-05-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the exparte appellate order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12.

A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Umeshbhai Manjibhai Koshiya vs. ITO

2.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had sent hearing notices to email ID hari000607@gmai.com whereas the email communication notice as mentioned in Form No. 35 is ca.mihirthakkar@gmai.com. Because of this mis- communication there is a delay of 117 days in filing the above appeal and therefore requested to condone the delay which is neither willful nor wanton and filed a Notarized Affidavit.

3.

We are satisfied with explanation offered by the assessee for the condonation of delay, thereby the delay of 117 days in filing the above appeal is hereby condoned. Since the notices have sent to a wrong email ID, we hereby set aside the exparte appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to give fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass order on merits. Needless to say, the assessee should cooperate by filing all necessary details, documents before Ld. CIT(A) to pass fresh appellate order.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 07-05-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 07/05/2025 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 Umeshbhai Manjibhai Koshiya vs. ITO

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →