KIRTI KARSANDAS NAYAK,UMBERGAON V. ITO WARD-5, VAPI

ITA 659/SRT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Kirti Karsandas Nayak, the appellant, contesting an order from the Income Tax Officer (ITO) Ward-5, which was confirmed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The dispute centered on the reopening of the assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the addition of Rs. 879,390 as short-term capital gain, which the appellant argued was incorrect as it pertained to the purchase of a car that did not result in any capital gain. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the initial appeal due to a delay in filing, which the appellant attributed to non-receipt of the order at his registered email address. The ITAT found merit in the appellant's argument and allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous order and remanding the case for a fresh assessment on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782843 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J.K. CHANDNANI
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIN SHAH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “SMC” SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 659/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Kirti Karsandas Nayak, Plot No. 244/28, GIDC, Umbergaon-396171. Vs. ITO Ward-5, Fortune Square, Chala Road, Vapi-396191. PAN NO. ABBPN 3355 M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Parin Shah, CA Revenue by : Mr. J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/10/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 11.10.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011-12, raising following grounds : 1. The order passed by AO and confirmed by NFAC is invalid, bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act. 3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 879390 as short term capital gain Printed from counselvise.com ignoring fact that appellant purchase car which does not result into any capital gain. 4. LD. NFAC erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal by no delay in filing appeal. 5. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is 2. At the very threshold, the learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the delay of eleven days in the filin present appeal, as noted by the Registry. Referring to the affidavit placed on record, the learned Counsel submitted that the delay was occasioned solely by the non Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the as e-mail address, and that immediately upon becoming aware of the order, the appeal was instituted without any undue lapse of time. 3. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record of delay and the explanation furnished, which in our considered view constitutes a sufficient and bona fide cause, we are persuaded to condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice. The delay of eleven days in filing t appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Upon perusal of the impugned appellate order, it transpires that the assessee had remained Commissioner (Appeals), and that there had also been ignoring fact that appellant purchase car which does not result into any capital gain. LD. NFAC erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal by observing delay ignoring fact that there is no delay in filing appeal. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the is unjustified. At the very threshold, the learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the delay of eleven days in the filin present appeal, as noted by the Registry. Referring to the affidavit placed on record, the learned Counsel submitted that the delay was occasioned solely by the non-receipt of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the assessee’s registered mail address, and that immediately upon becoming aware of the order, the appeal was instituted without any undue lapse of time. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. Having regard to the trifling period of delay and the explanation furnished, which in our considered view constitutes a sufficient and bona fide cause, we are persuaded to condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice. The delay of eleven days in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. Upon perusal of the impugned appellate order, it transpires that the assessee had remained ex parte before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), and that there had also been Kirti Karsandas Nayak 2 ITA No. 659/SRT/2025 ignoring fact that appellant purchase car which does LD. NFAC erred in law and on facts in dismissing the observing delay ignoring fact that there is Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the At the very threshold, the learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the delay of eleven days in the filing of the present appeal, as noted by the Registry. Referring to the affidavit placed on record, the learned Counsel submitted that the delay was receipt of the order of the learned sessee’s registered mail address, and that immediately upon becoming aware of the order, the appeal was instituted without any undue lapse of time. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused ard to the trifling period of delay and the explanation furnished, which in our considered view constitutes a sufficient and bona fide cause, we are persuaded to condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice. The delay he appeal is accordingly condoned, and the Upon perusal of the impugned appellate order, it transpires before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), and that there had also been a delay in Printed from counselvise.com the presentation of the appeal before him. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), taking note of the delay, dismissed the appeal in limine without entering into the merits of the case. 5. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitt that, in the interest of justice, the assessee may be afforded one further opportunity to appear before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and to place on record an appropriate application, supported by affidavit, seeking condonation of the delay before authority. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and bearing in mind that the principles of natural justice constitute the very foundation of adjudicatory fairness, we are of the view that the ends of substantial justice would b granted such opportunity. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside, and the matter is restored to his file with the direction to first consider the assessee’s application for condon evidence to be adduced, and, if the delay is condoned, to thereafter dispose of the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. the presentation of the appeal before him. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), taking note of the delay, dismissed the without entering into the merits of the case. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitt that, in the interest of justice, the assessee may be afforded one further opportunity to appear before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and to place on record an appropriate application, supported by affidavit, seeking condonation of the delay before Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and bearing in mind that the principles of natural justice constitute the very foundation of adjudicatory fairness, we are of the view that the ends of substantial justice would be best served if the assessee is granted such opportunity. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside, and the matter is restored to his file with the direction to first consider the assessee’s application for condonation of delay in the light of the facts and evidence to be adduced, and, if the delay is condoned, to thereafter dispose of the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Kirti Karsandas Nayak 3 ITA No. 659/SRT/2025 the presentation of the appeal before him. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), taking note of the delay, dismissed the without entering into the merits of the case. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that, in the interest of justice, the assessee may be afforded one further opportunity to appear before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and to place on record an appropriate application, supported by affidavit, seeking condonation of the delay before that Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and bearing in mind that the principles of natural justice constitute the very foundation of adjudicatory fairness, we are of the view that the e best served if the assessee is granted such opportunity. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside, and the matter is restored to his file with the direction to first consider the assessee’s ation of delay in the light of the facts and evidence to be adduced, and, if the delay is condoned, to thereafter dispose of the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 7. In the result, the ap statistical purposes. Order pronounced by way display o on 30/10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30/10/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard file. //True Copy// In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Order pronounced by way display of result on notice board /10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. - Sd/ (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Surat Kirti Karsandas Nayak 4 ITA No. 659/SRT/2025 peal of the assessee is allowed for f result on notice board /10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Surat Printed from counselvise.com "