SHAHNAWAZ MUSTAKKHAN PATHAN,MEHSANA V. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

ITA 1270/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shahnawaz Mustakkhan Pathan, the appellant, who contested an ex parte order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The dispute arose from the assessment year 2012-13, where the Income Tax Officer added Rs.37,98,608 to the assessee's income, attributing it to profits from Multi Commodity Exchange transactions. The assessee had reported a significantly lower income and failed to provide satisfactory explanations during the assessment, leading to the addition. The primary contention in the appeal was the improper service of notices, which were sent via email contrary to the assessee's request for non-email communication, resulting in the assessee being unheard in the initial appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772641 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NITIN KULKARNI
• Assessee Lawyers: RUSHIN PATEL

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1270/Ahd/2025 (िनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Shahnawaz Mustakkhan Pathan 41, Mayur Park Society, Near DSP Office, Mehsana, Gujarat – 384001 बनाम/ Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Mehsana èथायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AOYPP2431C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथȸ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Rushin Patel, A.R. Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 26/08/2025 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi dated 21.03.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. 2. At the outset itself, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was an ex parte order and it was not the assessee who was to be faulted for the same. He Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1270/Ahd/2025 [Shahnawaz Mustakkhan Pathan vs. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 – contended that in the Form No.35 of appeal filed to the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee had categorically mentioned that the notices or communication of hearing should not be sent on email. He pointed out that despite so specifying, all notices were sent by the Ld. CIT(A) vide email and, therefore, remained uncomplied with. He drew our attention to the aforestated facts from Form No.35 which is part of the appeal set filed before me and from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) Page 3 where he pointed out that all notices of hearing were recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) to have been sent on email. He, therefore, contended that the assessee had remained unheard before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the appeal needs to be heard afresh by the first appellate authority. 3. Ld. DR fairly agreed with the same. 4. Having noted so, I find that in the present case, the assessment was framed making addition to the income of the assessee of Rs.37,98,608/- on account of alleged profits earned by the assessee on Multi Commodity Exchange transactions carried out during the year to the tune of Rs.75,97,21,755/-. The assessee had returned income of Rs.13,160/-, but during assessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to furnish proper explanation regarding the income earned from the commodity exchange transactions and, therefore, the AO estimated net profit @ 0.5% of the total transactions carried out by it, resulting in addition of Rs.37,98,608/- made to its income. Since, admittedly, the assessee had remained unheard before the Ld. CIT(A) on account of notices of hearing remaining unserved Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1270/Ahd/2025 [Shahnawaz Mustakkhan Pathan vs. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 3 – to the assessee, the issue needs to be restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) for consideration afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced on 26/08/2025 Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 26/08/2025 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश कȧ Ĥितिलǒप अĒेǒषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƠ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƠ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. ǒवभागीय Ĥितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "