CHIMANBHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL,SURAT V. ITO, WARD 1(3)(6), SURAT

ITA 1044/SRT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Chimanbhai Bhikhabhai Patel, the appellant, who contested the orders of the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment year 2014-15. The primary issues revolved around the belated filing of the appeal, the reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer, and the subsequent additions made to the assessee's income. The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine reasons, including the assessee's mental health issues and lack of communication from his previous tax consultant. The Tribunal emphasized the need to adhere to the principles of natural justice, granting the assessee another opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786918 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAMITA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAPNESH R SHETH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Principle of natural justice; Valuation report
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1044/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 (Hybrid hearing) Chimanbhai Bhikhabhai Patel S. No.3/2, Koliwad, Adajan Gam, Adajan, Surat-395 009 बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer , Ward-1(3)(6), Income-tax Office, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan Hazira Road, Surat-395 001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AFYPP 4446 E (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Appellant by Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Advocate राजèव कȧ ओर से /Respondent by Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing 28/08/2025 उɮघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 14.12.2022 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner of Income- tax(Appeals) [in short, ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2014-15, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 15.11.2018. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by assessee on the ground that appeal was filed belatedly although genuine reasons were given for condonation of delay. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.1044/Srt/2024 A.Y 14-15 Chimanbhai B. Patel action of the Assessing Officer in reopening assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the I.T Act, 1961 without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Office in making addition of Rs.37,76,500/- u/s 69 of Income tax Act, 1961 as unexplained income. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, even otherwise also the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Office in not giving deduction towards indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement while calculating income from long-term capital gain. 6. It is therefore prayed that the above additions made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 7. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of appeal.” 3. In the instant case, appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 606 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee submitted that CIT(A) passed order on 14.12.2022 but did not supply the physical copy of the order. He was unaware regarding appellate order. The primary e-mail id and mobile number given in Form-35 was that of the previous tax consultant who did not inform the assessee about the appellate order. The assessee submitted that his mental condition severely deteoriated since 2016 and he has been suffering from hallucinations and undergoing medical treatment. Assessee filed copies of medical certificate and prescription of the consulting doctor. The appellant submitted that the delay in filing appeal was neither wilful nor deliberate and Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.1044/Srt/2024 A.Y 14-15 Chimanbhai B. Patel that he was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has a very strong case on merit because that AO has made double addition and the actual capital gain will be loss of Rs.11.14 lakhs. He requested that in the interest of justice, the delay may be condoned and appeal may be decided on merit. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. She, however, stated that the Bench may decide the preliminary issue as it thinks fit. 5. We have heard both parties on this preliminary issue of condonation of delay. In the affidavit, it is submitted that assessee did not receive any appellate order physically due to which assessee was unaware of the appellate order and could not file appeal against the order in time before the Tribunal. The appellant was also suffering from mental illness and was undergoing treatment. He has enclosed the medical certificates in support of his medical treatment. Considering all these facts, we find that the delay was no intentional and deliberate. The assessee was unaware of the appellate order due to which he was unable to file appeal before the Tribunal in time. Hence, there was reasonable and sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 6. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,10,350/-. The case was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 on 27.03.2018. The assessee did not file any return in response Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.1044/Srt/2024 A.Y 14-15 Chimanbhai B. Patel to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently, the AO issued notices u/s 142(1) and letter asking the assessee to file details pertaining to the assessment proceedings. But the assessee did not file any details. Therefore, order u/s.144 of the Act was passed on 15.11.2018 wherein total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.39,86,850/- by making addition of Rs.37,76,500/- u/s 69 of the Act. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In appellate proceedings, in Form- 35, it was mentioned that there was delay of 364 days in filing appeal. The CIT(A) relied on various decisions mentioned in para-5.7 to 5.10 of the appellate order and dismissed the appeal in limine. 7. Further aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted the paper book containing various details including written submission before CIT(A), sale deed of agricultural land, Fom-7/12 of the land sold by assessee, valuation report of the agricultural land etc. The Ld. AR assailed the impugned order by contending that assessee could not represent his case before AO and the order being an ex parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice. The Ld. AR submitted that during the appellate proceedings, CIT(A) did not condone the delay; therefore, Ld. AR contended that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.1044/Srt/2024 A.Y 14-15 Chimanbhai B. Patel 8. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee was negligent during the assessment; hence, appeal of the assessee should be dismissed. In case the delay is condoned, appropriate cost may be imposed on the assessee. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has been negligent and non co-operative during the assessment proceedings. Consequently, AO had to complete the ‘best judgement assessment’ u/s.144 of the Act. Subsequently, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay of 364 days in filing appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that the appellant could not appear before the AO and subsequently, the CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal due to delay in filing the appeal before him. He submitted that the case of the appellant has not been decided on merit by any of the lower authorities and huge tax liability has been fastened on the appellant. He requested for one more opportunity should be allowed in the interest of justice and fair play. We find that appellant could not file appeal before the CIT(A) in stipulated time limit due to keeping away the assessment order by the previous tax consultant. The appellant does not stand to gain by not filing the appeal in time. It is well settled that principles of natural justice require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Considering the totality of the facts discussed above, we condone the delay in filing of appeal before CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication on merit subject Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.1044/Srt/2024 A.Y 14-15 Chimanbhai B. Patel to the payment of cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) by the assessee to the credit of the ‘PM National Relief Fund’ within one month from receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of above cost, the CIT(A) shall initiate the fresh appellate proceedings and pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish explanation and relevant details before the CIT(A) expeditiously by not seeking adjournment without valid reason. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the appellant is treated as allowed. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 17/11/2025 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA R KAMBLE) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) Æयाियक सदÖय/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदÖय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER सूरत/Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 17/11/2025 Dkp Outsourcing Sr.P.S* आदेश कì ÿितिलिप अúेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथê/ The Appellant  ÿÂयथê/ The Respondent  आयकर आयुĉ/ CIT  आयकर आयुĉ(अपील)/ The CIT(A)  िवभागीय ÿितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, सूरत/ DR, ITAT, SURAT  गाडª फाईल/ Guard File By order/आदेश से, सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, सूरत Printed from counselvise.com "