RAKESH JAYANTILAL LAKDAWALA L/H KALAVATIBEN JAYANTILAL LAKADAWALA,SURAT V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 688/SRT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Rakesh Jayantilal Lakdawala, the legal heir of Kalavatiben Jayantilal Lakadawala, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appeal was related to the Assessment Year 2011-12 and contested the re-opening of assessment and subsequent additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The additions included unexplained investments in shares and time deposits. The Tribunal noted procedural lapses in the notification process and the opportunity for a fair hearing, leading to the decision to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837727 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY UKE
• Assessee Lawyers: P. M. JAGASHETH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सूरत \u0010ा यपीठ, सूरत । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT [conducted through Hybrid mode] \u0015ी संजय गग\u0019, \u0010ा ियक सद\u001b एवं \u0015ी िबजया न ा !ुसेथ, लेखा सद\u001b क े सम'। ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.688/SRT/2024 िनधा \u000fरण वष\u000f /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Rakesh Jayantilal Lakdawala Legal Heir - Kalavatiben Jayantilal Lakadawala 7/4200, Galemandi Suthar Faliya Surat – 395 003 बनाम/ v/s. The ITO Ward-3(1)(2) Surat – 395 007 \u0013थायी लेखा सं./PAN: ACVPL 6127 E (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA Revenue by : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 28/06/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. 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 re-opening the assessment u/s.147 of the Act and issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act, 1961. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.688/SRT/2024 Rakesh Jayantilal Lakdawala L/H.Kalavatiben Jayantilal Lakadawala vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 2 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 Rs.89,900/-on account of cheque issued out of explained source treated as unexplained investment made in shares. 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. 12,66,154/-on account of total income of the assessee through the same being the renewed of FDs of earlier year and from explained source treated as alleged unexplained investment made in time deposit. 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 not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed ex-parte order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the case appellant craves for admission of addition evidence in the interest of natural justice and equity. 6. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 7. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The appeal is time-barred by 298 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been stated by the legal heir Shri Rakesh Jayantilal Lakdawala of assessee Smt. Kalavatiben Jayantilal Lakdawala that due to death of assessee on 24/03/2024, the appeal of the assessee could not be represented. That even in appeal Form No.35 before the Ld. CIT(A), the email ID [e-mail] was mentioned, however, the notices of hearing was served on email Id: [e-mail] and even the copy of the order was also not served upon the correct email-id. Hence, the appeal was filed belatedly due to lack of knowledge and because of the aforesaid reasons, a delay of 298 days has occurred in filing the appeal. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.688/SRT/2024 Rakesh Jayantilal Lakdawala L/H.Kalavatiben Jayantilal Lakadawala vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 3 Considering the averments made in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the requisite details relating to the source of the deposit/investment were not available with the deceased-assessee and that now her son/legal heir has obtained the necessary details. He, therefore, has submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the AO and may also be allowed to furnish the necessary details and evidences. 5. Considering the rival submissions, in our view, the interests of justice will be well-served if the assessee be given an opportunity of hearing before the AO. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is, accordingly, set aside and matter is restored to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The assessee will remain vigilant and promptly respond to the notices issued by the AO and furnish the necessary details. The AO will consider the submissions made by the assessee and thereafter will pass a speaking assessment order in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 17 /02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Bijayananda Pruseth) Accountant Member ( Sanjay Garg ) Judicial Member िदनांक/Dated 17 /02/2026 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.688/SRT/2024 Rakesh Jayantilal Lakdawala L/H.Kalavatiben Jayantilal Lakadawala vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 4 आदेश की ितिलिप अ!ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\" / The Appellant 2. #थ\" / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु% / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु% ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध , अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर , सूरत /AR,ITAT, Surat/Ahmedabad. 6. गाड\u000f फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स#ािपत ित //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT,Surat/Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation (dictation pad is attached with the file)) : 9.2.2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member. : 9.2.2026 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S : 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement. : 5. Date on which fair order placed before Other Member : 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S. : 19.2.26 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 19.2.26 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk. : 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order. : 10. Date of Despatch of the Order : Printed from counselvise.com "