URMILABEN THAKORDAS SOPARIWALA,SURAT V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT

ITA 917/SRT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Urmilaben Thakordas Sopariwala, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2012-13. The original return of income was filed on 04.01.2014, declaring a total income of Rs.7,27,040. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to new information, and issued a notice under section 148 on 31.03.2018. The reassessment included additions for long-term capital gains under section 50C amounting to Rs.29,40,658 and Rs.7,36,213. The CIT(A) upheld these additions, leading to the current appeal. The primary contention in the appeal was the violation of the principle of natural justice, as the notices for the hearing were sent to an incorrect email ID, resulting in a delay in filing the appeal by 251 days.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782847 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 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: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961, Limitation Act, 1963
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY UKE
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJ SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 50C

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. 917/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Urmilaben Thakordas Sopariwala, 8/743, Hanuman Char Rasta, Gopipura, Surat-395001. Vs. ITO Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. New Civil Hospital Majuragate, Surat-395001. PAN NO. APRPS 5313 J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Raj Shah, CA Revenue by : Mr. Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/10/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) – 3 Delhi [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds: 1. Learned officer has erred in facts as well as in law while issuing the impugned order. 2. Learned officer has violated the principle of natural justice while issuing the impugned order. Printed from counselvise.com 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, substitute and/OR DLEETE all OR any of the grounds of appeal on OR before the final hearing. 2. Briefly stated, original return of income on 04.01.2014 declaring total income at Rs.7,27,040/-. Subsequently, in view of information, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Income 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2018. The reassessment was completed on 14.12.2019 wherein two additions for long term capital gain of Rs.29,40,658/ u/s 50C of the Act amounting to Rs.7,36,213/ 3. On further appeal, despite issuing various notices on the registered e-mail ID as well as on the e was made on the part of the assessee and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition m impugned order. 3.1 Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drawn out attention to the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. Counsel submitted that notices were issued on the e other than the e-mail ID mentioned in the form No. 35 and therefore, assessee was CIT(A) and which resulted in delay in filing appeal According to the Ld. Counsel there are bona assessee is having Urmilaben Thakordas Spariwala The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, substitute and/OR DLEETE all OR any of the grounds of appeal on OR before the final hearing. facts of the case are that the assessee filed original return of income on 04.01.2014 declaring total income at . Subsequently, in view of information, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Income t ‘the Act’) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2018. The reassessment was completed on 14.12.2019 wherein two additions were made by the Assessing Officer, for long term capital gain of Rs.29,40,658/- and secondly the Act amounting to Rs.7,36,213/-. On further appeal, despite issuing various notices on the mail ID as well as on the e-filing portal was made on the part of the assessee and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer vide his Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drawn out attention to the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. Counsel submitted that notices were issued on the e mail ID mentioned in the form No. 35 and herefore, assessee was not having access to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and which resulted in delay in filing appeal the Ld. Counsel there are bonafide reasons and a strong case on merit. In support of the ITA No. 917/SRT/2025 2 Urmilaben Thakordas Spariwala The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, substitute and/OR DLEETE all OR any of the grounds of appeal on OR facts of the case are that the assessee filed original return of income on 04.01.2014 declaring total income at . Subsequently, in view of information, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, t ‘the Act’) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2018. The reassessment was completed on 14.12.2019 were made by the Assessing Officer, firstly, and secondly, addition On further appeal, despite issuing various notices on the filing portal, no compliance was made on the part of the assessee and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) ade by the Assessing Officer vide his Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drawn out attention to the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. Counsel submitted that notices were issued on the e-mail ID mail ID mentioned in the form No. 35 and not having access to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and which resulted in delay in filing appeal by 251 days. fide reasons and In support of the Printed from counselvise.com application seeking condonation of delay, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon the affidavit of the assessee explaining the reasons which, according to him, constitute a “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitat Act, 1963, as applicable to proceedings under the Income 4. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. In our opinion, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for non same is admitted for adjudication. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties merit of the issue also. We find that assessee could not represent before the Ld. CIT(A) mainly for the reason that notices were sent on the e other than the e-mail ground, we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal also. In view of above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee should be provided one more opportunity for presenting his matter before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter back to him for deciding afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Urmilaben Thakordas Spariwala application seeking condonation of delay, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon the affidavit of the assessee dated 07.10.2025 explaining the reasons which, according to him, constitute a “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitat Act, 1963, as applicable to proceedings under the Income We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. In our opinion, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for non-filing the appeal on time an same is admitted for adjudication. We have heard rival submission of the parties merit of the issue also. We find that assessee could not represent before the Ld. CIT(A) mainly for the reason that notices were sent on the e mail ID mentioned in Form No. 35 we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal also. In view of above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee should be provided one more opportunity for matter before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter back to him for deciding afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. ITA No. 917/SRT/2025 3 Urmilaben Thakordas Spariwala application seeking condonation of delay, the learned Counsel dated 07.10.2025 explaining the reasons which, according to him, constitute a “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as applicable to proceedings under the Income-tax Act. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. In our opinion, the assessee was prevented filing the appeal on time and therefore, We have heard rival submission of the parties merit of the issue also. We find that assessee could not represent before the Ld. CIT(A) mainly for the reason that notices were sent on the e-mail mentioned in Form No. 35. On the same we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal also. In view of above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee should be provided one more opportunity for matter before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter back to him for deciding afresh after providing adequate Printed from counselvise.com 6. In the result, the 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 Surat; Dated: 30/10/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. (on Tour) Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Urmilaben Thakordas Spariwala 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 ITA No. 917/SRT/2025 4 Urmilaben Thakordas Spariwala appeal 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 "