JAYENDRASINH BHIKHUBHAI SOLANKI,SILVASSA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER- SILVASSA, SILVASSA

ITA 1244/SRT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Jayendrasinh Bhikhubhai Solanki, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the reassessment made by the Assessing Officer under sections 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reassessment was based on undisclosed cash deposits in the appellant's bank account, which were allegedly linked to the purchase of immovable property. The CIT(A) dismissed the appellant's appeal due to non-compliance with various notices, as the appellant did not respond to the notices sent to an email address of his previous representative. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing and had not decided the case on its merits, leading to the decision to remit the case back to the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473442 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: Devang Arvindbhai Desai vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: HIMANSHU GANDHI
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 148; 143(3); 250; 271(1)(c); 69A; 234B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JIDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1244/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid processing Hearing) Jayendrasinh Bhikhubhai Solanki 37/3, Trimurti Bhavan, High School Faliya, Naroli, Silvassa-396 230 बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Ward, Income Tax Office, Vee Bee Mall, Near Civil Court, Tokarkhada, Silvassa -396 230 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANGPS 4011 C (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ /Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CA िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing 20.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 07.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [in short, “CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) dated 26.09.2024 for assessment year (AY) 2011-12, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 18.12.2018. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte order without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merit. 2 ITA No.1244/SRT/2024 AY.11-12 Jayendrasinh B Solanki 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming validity of reassessment proceeding under section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that no other addition is permissible, if no addition made on basis of reasons recorded for reopening. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of rs.84,00,000 under section 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case law, the Ld.CIT(A) failed to consider that the provisions of section 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable when the appellant is not maintaining books of account. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming charging of interest under section 234A, 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 2. Facts of the case are that assessee had not filed his return of income (in short, ‘ROI’) for the AY 2011-12 on the basis of information available with the Department that assessee purchased immovable property during the year under consideration, the AO re-opened the case after obtaining necessary approval from higher authority. In response show cause notice u/s 148 issued on 26.03.2018, assessee filed his ROI on 28.11.2018 declaring income at Rs.48,424/-. The AO made re-assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 18.12.2018 by making addition of Rs.84,00,00/- being undisclosed cash deposit in the 3 ITA No.1244/SRT/2024 AY.11-12 Jayendrasinh B Solanki bank account. Aggrieved by the order of AO passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, assessee filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance by assessee to various notices issued to him, as per para-3.3 of the appellate order. The CIT(A) has not decided the case on merit. Further, aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Before us, Ld.AR of the assessee stated that the assessee while filing details in Form-35, he opted option as “No” for service of notices through e-mail as assessee was not in habit and practice to check his e- mail because he is not well versed with electronic gadgets. However, the notices were sent by the CIT(A) in the e-mail address of the previous AR of the assessee. Consequently, in absence of reply from assessee, CIT(A) passed the impugned order on 26.09.2024 ex parte. He requested that one more opportunity may be given so that appellant would plead his case on merit. He relied on decision of ITAT, Surat in case of Devang Arvindbhai Desai vs. ITO in ITA Nos.462- 463/Srt/2024 dated 20.11.2024. 4. On the other hand, Ld.Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. He stated that assessee has been negligent in pursuing the appeal before CIT(A). 4 ITA No.1244/SRT/2024 AY.11-12 Jayendrasinh B Solanki 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. The Ld. AR has argued that CIT(A) has passed order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunities of being heard to assessee. The notices were sent in the e-mail address of the previous CA. The CIT(A) dismissed appeal by passing a cryptic order without discussing merits of the case as required u/s 250(6) of the Act. We find that impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is clearly violative of the express provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, which provides that the appellate orders of the Ld.CIT(A) are to state the points arising in the appeal, the decision of the authority thereon and the reasons for such decisions. The underlying rationale of the provision is that such orders are subject to further appeal to the appellate Tribunal. Speaking order would obviously enable a party to know precise points decided in his favour or against him. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of Ld.AR for the assessee that the assessment order was confirmed by CIT(A) in an ex parte order, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to contest its case on merit. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to assessee. The assessee is 5 ITA No.1244/SRT/2024 AY.11-12 Jayendrasinh B Solanki directed to be vigilant and to furnish all details and explanation as needed by CIT(A) by not seeking adjournment without valid reason. With this direction, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 07/03/2025 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) Æयाियक सदÖय/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदÖय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER सूरत/Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 07/03/2025 Dkp Outsourcing Sr.P.S* आदेश कì ÿितिलिप अúेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथê/ The Appellant  ÿÂयथê/ The Respondent  आयकर आयुĉ/ CIT  आयकर आयुĉ (अपील)/ The CIT(A)  िवभागीय ÿितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, सूरत/ DR, ITAT, SURAT  गाडª फाईल/ Guard File // True Copy // By order/आदेश से, सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, सूरत "