ARVINDKUMAR DAYALAL CHAVDA,RAJKOT V. THE ITO WARD-2 (2) (3), RAJKOT

ITA 841/RJT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Arvindkumar Dayalal Chavda against an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a significant delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal considered the reasons for the delay, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the assessee's consultation with legal advisors. The Tribunal found the reasons sufficient to condone the delay and restore the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705862 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471), Bharat Auto Center v. CIT 282 ITR 366
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: KUMAR PANDYA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Rectification of order
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. A. L. SAINI, AM & Shri DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 841/RJT/2024 Assessment Year: (2019-20) Arvindkumar Dayalal Chavda 3 – Nilay, Maruti Nagar, Opp. Krishnam Appartment, Airport Road, Rajkot – 360001 Vs. ITO, ward – 2(2)(3), Rajkot New Aayakar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Race course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABZPC0502D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Kumar Pandya, AR Respondent by Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement 30/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], dated 24.10.2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The appeal filed by the assessee, before this Tribunal, for Assessment Year 2019-20, is barred by limitation by 23 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. Page | 2 ITA. 841/Rjt/2024 AY.2019-20 Arvindkumar D. Chavda 3.At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A), did not condone the delay of 945 days, and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine, without adjudicating the issue on merit. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted a chart of important events, to explain the delay of 945 days, which are reproduced below: Important Dates for Assessment Year: 2019-2020:- Sr EVENT DATE Time Limit 1 Filling of ITR u/s 139(1) 20/07/2019 Within Time 2 Order u/s 143(1) 28-08- 2019 39 days No Demand 3 Order u/s 154 29/10/2021 832 days delay from Income Tax Department after issued of order u/s 143(1) with Demand of Rs.87,830/- 4 Appeal u/s 246(A) before CIT(A) With Delay Condone Application by Assessee 30/06/2024 945 days delay with delay condone Application. 5 Order u/s 250. Video Conference for Oral Evidence is requested n Appeal which is not given by Income Tax Department before issue of Order u/s 250. 24/10/2024 116 days The Learned Counsel for the assessee argued that order u/s 154 of the Act is dated 29/10/2021 and at that point of time, the Covid- 19 pandemic was going on, therefore, everybody was working with safety measures. Therefore, a part delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) is due to COVID-19 pandemic disease. For remaining delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was due to alternative remedy, being exercised by the assessee, that is, assessee was in the process of taking advice from the advocate, whether he has to file appeal before learned CIT(A) against the rectification order passed by the CPC-assessing officer, under section 154 of the Act. Therefore, learned Counsel contended that in the interest of Page | 3 ITA. 841/Rjt/2024 AY.2019-20 Arvindkumar D. Chavda justice, the delay in filing the appeal before learned CIT(A), may be condoned and matter, may be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that assessee under consideration a Retired Government Servant, he had worked in Department of Telecommunications and in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, (BSNL) which are serving the India for providing telecom services. The part delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT( A) was because of COVID-19, pandemic disease. The sufficient cause was explained by the assessee, therefore, after condonation of delay, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 5. We have heard both the parties. While considering a delay in filing the appeal, the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down six principles. For the purpose of convenience, the principles laid down by the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder: (1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious' matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (3) Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's Page | 4 ITA. 841/Rjt/2024 AY.2019-20 Arvindkumar D. Chavda delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner. (4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 6. We note that there is a statutory limit prescribed for filing of appeal in the Act. The invocation of the power to condone any delay, major or minor, in observing such time limit is possible only on the satisfaction of the authorities, regarding the appellant having been unable to file the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. The appellant cannot be entitled to automatic admission of appeal filed after the time limit. The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the \"sufficient cause\" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. 7. However, the words ‘sufficient cause’ should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice where no negligence nor Page | 5 ITA. 841/Rjt/2024 AY.2019-20 Arvindkumar D. Chavda inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the applicant [Bharat Auto Center v. CIT 282 ITR 366]. We note that in assessee`s case under consideration, the part delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) has occurred due to COVID-19 pandemic disease and for rest delay in filing the appeal, the assessee has explained the sufficient cause.Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. We, accordingly, condone the delay, in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 8.Since the Ld.CIT(A), has not adjudicated the assessee`s appeal on merit. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Ld. CIT(A). We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 30/06/2025 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- Sd/- Page | 6 ITA. 841/Rjt/2024 AY.2019-20 Arvindkumar D. Chavda Rajkot Ǒदनांक/ Date: 30 /06/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot "