SHYAMLAL LALCHAND SINGH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(6), SURAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment (denovo assessment).
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay of 418 days. The delay was attributed to notices not being received due to incorrect email addresses and the COVID-19 pandemic period. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices led to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the matter should be remanded for a fresh assessment due to procedural lapses and non-receipt of notices.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 37(1),Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 270A,Section 271AAC(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘NFAC’), Delhi dated 25/10/2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.
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 making addition and passing assessment order u/s. 143(3) r. w.s 144B of the Act without any base, hence the impugned assessment order is absolutely erroneous, illegal and bad in law and needs to be quashed.
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 of Rs.7,43,405/-
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.1,72,229/ on account of alleged disallowance of deduction claimed under chapter VI-A.
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 erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 1,60,51,895/ on account of fresh other liabilities credited in the books of account treated as alleged unexplained credit u/s.68 rws. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. 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. 1,41,266/ on account of alleged disallowance of claim of depreciation on fresh fixed assets increased in fixed assets treated as income.
6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
8. 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 submission, hence, the case may please be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO for sake of the interest of natural justice.
9. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper.
10. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.
There is a delay of 418 days in filing the present appeal. A separate application of condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been stated that during of the course of assessment proceedings, the notices were issue Shyamlal lalchand singh Vs. ITO Asst. Year – 2018-19 - 3– on the Income Tax portal and were also e-mailed to the previous consultant of the assessee, who did not check the said notices and even did not inform the assessee about it.
It has been further stated by the Ld. Counsel that assessment order is dated 26.04.2021 which was during the Covid Pandemic period. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further demonstrated from the assessment order that notice of hearing issued by the Assessing Officer were also during the Covid Pandemic period.
It has been further deposed in the said affidavit of the assessee that the assessee had mentioned the E-mail Id for service of notice in appeal Form 35 before the CIT(A) as cmashalibhadrashah@gmail.com, whereas, the Ld. CIT(A) has issued the last two notices at a different email-id i.e. scbhuwala@yahoo.com, therefore, the above notices did not come to the notice of the assessee, resulting into ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Even the assessee did not receive the copy of the impugned order of the CIT(A) either physically or on the e-mail furnished in appeal Form 35, resulting into the aforesaid long delay of 418 days.
The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the non-appearance before the lower authorities as well as the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal was not intentional but due to the aforesaid reasons.
The Ld. D.R. could not rebut the aforesaid factual aspects on the file.
In our view, the interests of justice will be well served if the assessee be given an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned, impugned order of the CIT(A) is hereby set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer will give proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to present his case and thereafter to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 01/01/2026
More judgments on Section 37(1)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Smit Navnitlal Soni, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs ITO Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad, GujaratITA 1434/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
