What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication, with a direction to the assessee to furnish all relevant details and documents.

The assessee failed to furnish requisite explanations and reply before the Assessing Officer (AO) despite being given sufficient opportunities. Consequently, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's action and dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee also failed to provide documentary evidence before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal without granting a further opportunity, given the assessee's non-compliance before the AO.

Riyaz Rafiq Padela vs ITO | ITAT Surat 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Hearing: 22.01.2026Pronounced: 23.01.2026

(Assessment Year: 2017-18) Riyaz Rafiq Padela, ITO, 803, Royal Residency, Gorat, Vs. Ward – 3(2)(8), Adajan Patia, Surat - 395009 Surat [PAN: ACIPP2275Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA Respondent by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.01.2026 O R D E R

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 01.03.2024, under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

Delay condoned.

3. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunities of hearing given by the Assessing Officer, but the assessee failed to furnish requisite explanations and reply before the AO. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We also find that the assessee remained non-compliant before the AO and failed to furnish Asst. Year: 2017-18 - 2– requisite documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that one more opportunity may be given, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall submit all the relevant details and documents before the AO and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

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

RIYAZ RAFIQ PADELA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(8), SURAT

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments