KANAK PRAMUKHLAL SANDESARA,KUTCH V. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

MA 32/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Kanak Pramukhlal Sandesara, who filed a Miscellaneous Application against an ex-parte order dismissing his appeal due to non-appearance. The original appeal was dismissed by the ITAT on 06.12.2024 for non-compliance and non-appearance despite multiple opportunities. Sandesara, being semi-literate and unfamiliar with the tax appellate procedures, claimed he did not receive proper notice of the hearing dates, which led to his absence. The Tribunal, considering his circumstances and the explanations provided, decided to recall the ex-parte order and restore the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787004 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIJIT
• Assessee Lawyers: PRASHANT SHAH

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.32/Ahd/2025 in I.T.A. No.984/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kanak Pramukhlal Sandesara, 45, Rajsukh Building, Opp. Gujarat Vidyapity, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380001 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Ahmedabad [PAN No.AEAPS1539N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Prashant Shah, AR Respondent by: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 20.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.11.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee has filed the present Miscellaneous Application against order passed in the case of assessee Kanak Pramukhlal Sandesara vs. ITO in ITA No. 984/Ahd/2024 vide order dated 06.12.2024, in which the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account of non-appearance, despite having been afforded several opportunities of hearing. Accordingly, the ITAT dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “10. Accordingly, in view of the above judicial precedents and the fact that the assessee has all throughout remained evasive and non-compliant, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has correctly upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for interference. Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 32/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 984/Ahd/2024) Kanak Pramukhlal Sandesara vs. ITO Asst. Year –2017-18 - 2– 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 2. Before us, the assessee has filed a Petition under Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 seeking recall of the ex- parte order dated 06.12.2024 passed in ITA No. 984/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2017-18. In the petition, the assessee submitted that he is a semi-literate individual educated only up to the 10th standard and is not conversant with income-tax proceedings or appellate procedures. The assessee submitted that he had not received the notice of hearing fixed on 02.09.2024 either by e-mail or in physical form. He further explained that although the Tribunal had directed the Registry to issue notice for the next hearing date of 01.10.2024 through RPAD, he did not receive any such notice by post. According to him, the only intimation received was through e-service on e-mail, which he could not properly understand due to lack of knowledge and guidance. The assessee also submitted that the hearings fixed on 01.10.2024 and 30.10.2024 did not take place as the Bench was not functioning on those dates. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 03.12.2024. By that time, however, his Authorised Representative had travelled abroad to New Zealand on 07.11.2024 to visit his son and was scheduled to return only in February 2025. As a result, the assessee was advised to appoint a new Authorised Representative. Since arranging for a new representative required some time, the assessee submitted an adjournment application dated 25.11.2024 (filed on 26.11.2024) requesting time to appoint another AR. He submitted that because of the above bona fide circumstances, the assessee was unable to attend the Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 32/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 984/Ahd/2024) Kanak Pramukhlal Sandesara vs. ITO Asst. Year –2017-18 - 3– hearing on 03.12.2024, due to which the appeal was decided ex-parte. He contended that his non-appearance was neither deliberate nor due to negligence, but occurred due to circumstances beyond his control. The assessee therefore prayed that there exists “sufficient cause” for non- attendance within the meaning of Rule 24 and that the ex-parte order dated 06.12.2024 may be recalled and the appeal may kindly be restored to its original number. 3. Accordingly, in light of the submissions of the assessee, in the interest of justice, the earlier order dated 06.12.2024 is hereby recalled in the interest of justice, and the Registry is directed to fix the matter for hearing in due course. 4. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 19/11/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (M. V. MAHADEOKAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 19/11/2025 Tanmay, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "