NITINBHAI KANUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

MA 105/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Nitinbhai Kanubhai Patel, the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking recall of an ex-parte order passed by the Tribunal. The appellant's authorized representative failed to appear at the hearing due to personal circumstances, despite having submitted an adjournment request via email and a written letter on the same day. The Tribunal found that the adjournment request was not considered during the original hearing, leading to an ex-parte decision. The Tribunal acknowledged the procedural lapse and decided to recall the order and restore the appeal for a hearing on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788685 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIJIT
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY H PATEL
• Keywords: Procedural lapse

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद Ɋायपीठ “C”, अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सुŵी सुिचũा काɾले, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵीमकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ। BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No. 105/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 183/Ahd/2025) (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Nitinbhai Kanubhai Patel, Kuldeep Society, Nr. Ishwar Bhuvan, Navrangpura, Gujarat-380009 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad [PAN No.AASPP5802F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vijay H Patel, AR Respondent by: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 28.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 O R D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This Miscellaneous Application has been moved under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking recall of the order of this Tribunal dated 14.10.2025 passed in ITA No. 183/Ahd/2025, which came to be decided ex parte qua the respondent-assessee. 2. The assessee submits that the appeal was fixed for hearing on 13.10.2025. Prior to the date of hearing, an adjournment request was preferred before the Registry by way of an email as well as a written letter dated 13.10.2025. It is pleaded that due to personal circumstances, Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 105/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 183/Ahd/2025) Shri Nitishbhai Kanubhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2016-17 - 2– the authorised representative could not remain present. It is the assessee’s case that the said adjournment application was not placed before the Bench when the matter was called out, resulting in the appeal being heard ex parte. The assessee has filed an affidavit affirming the above facts, stating that the non-appearance was neither deliberate nor contumacious, and that there existed sufficient cause for the inability to attend. 3. The assessee has placed on record copies of the email dated 13.10.2025, which are stated to have been sent in the ordinary course to seek adjournment. The prayer is that, in the interest of justice, the ex- parte order be recalled and the appeal heard on merits. 4. We have carefully examined the contents of the application, the supporting affidavit, and the contemporaneous correspondence filed along with the MA. We have also perused our order dated 14.10.2025 in ITA No. 183/Ahd/2025. 5. In paragraph 3.1 of the said order, the Bench recorded that the assessee and his authorised representative did not appear on the final date of hearing and that no written submissions had been filed despite service of notice. The presence of this finding in the original order makes it necessary for us to consider whether the adjournment request allegedly filed on 13.10.2025 was factually available before the Bench on the date of hearing. Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 105/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 183/Ahd/2025) Shri Nitishbhai Kanubhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2016-17 - 3– 6. Upon examination of the material placed before us in the present proceedings, namely the email as well as a written letter dated 13.10.2025, along with the sworn affidavit of the assessee, we find that the assessee has made out a bona fide case that an adjournment was indeed sought prior to the hearing. There is nothing on record to suggest that the said request was either frivolous or an afterthought. The absence of reference to such application in the order dated 14.10.2025 indicates that the adjournment application was not placed before the Bench when the matter was called on for hearing. 7. The recall jurisdiction under section 254(2) is limited to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record. Non-consideration of an adjournment request that was admittedly filed before the hearing results in prejudice to a party and constitutes an apparent error, since the matter came to be decided ex parte due to a procedural lapse rather than on account of deliberate non-appearance. It is a well-established judicial principle that no party should suffer for reasons beyond their control, and that adjudication on merits is always to be preferred when sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown. 8. Given the nature of issues involved in the appeal and considering that the order dated 14.10.2025 has been passed ex parte, we are satisfied that the ends of justice would be met by recalling the said order and restoring the appeal for fresh hearing. Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 105/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 183/Ahd/2025) Shri Nitishbhai Kanubhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2016-17 - 4– 9. In view of the foregoing, we hold as under: (a) The Miscellaneous Application is allowed. (b) The ex-parte order dated 14.10.2025 in ITA No. 183/Ahd/2025 is hereby recalled. (c) The appeal is restored to its original number and shall be fixed for hearing in due course. The Registry is directed to issue a fresh notice of hearing to both sides. (d) The assessee shall ensure due compliance on the next date of hearing and shall not seek adjournment except for compelling and demonstrable reasons. 10. The Miscellaneous Application is allowed in the manner indicated above. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 28 /11/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 28/11/2025 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 "