Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was time-barred by 298 days due to the death of the assessee and incorrect service of notices. The assessee's legal heir sought condonation of delay and an opportunity to present the case with new details.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed beyond the prescribed limitation period should be condoned and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity for fresh assessment.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth
Year : 2011-12 बनाम/ Rakesh Jayantilal Lakdawala The ITO v/s. Legal Heir - Ward-3(1)(2) Kalavatiben Jayantilal Surat – 395 007 Lakadawala 7/4200, Galemandi Suthar Faliya Surat – 395 003 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: ACVPL 6127 E (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA Revenue by : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 28/06/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. 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 re-opening the assessment u/s.147 of the Act and issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act, 1961. Rakesh Jayantilal Lakdawala L/H.Kalavatiben Jayantilal Lakadawala vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 2 2 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 making addition Rs.89,900/-on account of cheque issued out of explained source treated as unexplained investment made in shares.
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 making addition of Rs. 12,66,154/-on account of total income of the assessee through the same being the renewed of FDs of earlier year and from explained source treated as alleged unexplained investment made in time deposit.
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. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the case appellant craves for admission of addition evidence in the interest of natural justice and equity.
6. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper.
7. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.”
3. The appeal is time-barred by 298 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been stated by the legal heir Shri Rakesh Jayantilal Lakdawala of assessee Smt. Kalavatiben Jayantilal Lakdawala that due to death of assessee on 24/03/2024, the appeal of the assessee could not be represented. That even in appeal Form No.35 before the Ld. CIT(A), the email ID v.i.rudalal@gmail.com was mentioned, however, the notices of hearing was served on email Id: returnsjkp@gmail.com and even the copy of the order was also not served upon the correct email-id. Hence, the appeal was filed belatedly due to lack of knowledge and because of the aforesaid reasons, a delay of 298 days has occurred in filing the appeal. Rakesh Jayantilal Lakdawala L/H.Kalavatiben Jayantilal Lakadawala vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 3 Considering the averments made in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the requisite details relating to the source of the deposit/investment were not available with the deceased-assessee and that now her son/legal heir has obtained the necessary details. He, therefore, has submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the AO and may also be allowed to furnish the necessary details and evidences.
Considering the rival submissions, in our view, the interests of justice will be well-served if the assessee be given an opportunity of hearing before the AO. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is, accordingly, set aside and matter is restored to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The assessee will remain vigilant and promptly respond to the notices issued by the AO and furnish the necessary details. The AO will consider the submissions made by the assessee and thereafter will pass a speaking assessment order in accordance with law.