GORDHANBHAI L MORADIA,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(2), SURAT

"ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी िबजयान ा !ुसेथ, लेखा सद" के सम'। ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.375/SRT/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम/ Gordhanbhai L Moradia The ITO v/s. 401, Krishna Vatika Society Ward-1(3)(2) City Light Road Surat – 395 001 Surat – 395 001 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: ABLPM 2077 K (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Samir Shah, 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:

1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant merely for a delay of 2 days, that too without affording a single opportunity of requesting for condonation of delay. Gordhanbhai I. Moradia vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13

2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal filed against stand of AO in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act based on the information received from the office of the DCIT. Cir. 2(3), Surat, arising out of assessment order in the case of M/s. Shrushti Corporation passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and thus, not applying his mind for initiating reassessment proceedings as required u/s. 147 of the Act.

3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal filed against stand of the AO in making addition of Rs. 8,35,236 as interest on partner's capital with the firm during the year under consideration.

4. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal filed against stand of the AO in making disallowance of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act for Rs. 83,52,038/- without affording a reasonable opportunity to the appellant of making the submission and thus violating the principles of natural justice.

5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute, modify the above ground of appeal, if necessary on the basis of submissions to be made at the time of personal hearing.”

3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited for our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) to show that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding the same as barred by limitation of a very short period of two days. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that even the Ld. CIT(A) did not give any opportunity to the assessee to move an application for condonation of delay. He has further brought our attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that even the Ld. Assessing Officer(AO) did not give proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case and furnish the necessary details. The Ld. AR has further submitted that 2 days’ delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was not intentional, rather the same was due to some lapse on his authorized representative.

4. We note that in this case neither the AO has given proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case nor the Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the Gordhanbhai I. Moradia vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 matter on merits. In view of the above, in the interests of justice, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for de novo assessment.