DEVAYATBHAI KALOTARA,RAJKOT V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, RAJKOT

ITA 679/RJT/2026

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Devyatbhai Kalotara, against a penalty levied under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for failing to get his accounts audited as required under section 44AB due to exceeding the prescribed turnover limit. The penalty was initially set at Rs.1,50,000. The assessee's appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 135 days, attributed to miscommunication with his Authorized Representative. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for the delay and condoned it, emphasizing the importance of adjudicating the case on its merits rather than procedural lapses.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 897099 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-10-2026
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GANESH IYER; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMIR BHUPTANI; LD
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट Æयायपीठ, राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member And Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 679/RJT/2026 [ Ǔनधा[रण वष[/Assessment Year: 2020-21 ] Appellant by : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08/10/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 09/10/2026 :: ORDER :: Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘NFAC’], dated 02.03.2026, which in turn arises out of penalty levied u/s. 271B of the Act, dated 19.08.2025. 02. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21 declaring total income of Rs.4,68,458/-. Subsequently, reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, Devayatbhai Kalotara Vadvan Niwas, Ram Part - 3, Nr. Bhavnagar Road, Ajidem Chowkdi, Rajkot-360003, Gujarat Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 IT-OFFICE, New Aayakar Bhawan, Vatiaka, Rajkot-360001, Gujarat èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: DRTPK2869C (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Printed from counselvise.com Page 2 of 3 ITA No. 679/RJT/2026 Devyatbhai Kalotara 1961. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee was carrying on the business of sale of Amul milk through his proprietary concern, Brahmani Dairy, and had disclosed gross turnover of Rs.4,09,05,770/-.Since the turnover exceeded the prescribed monetary limit, the assessee was required to get his accounts audited under section 44AB of the Act and furnish the prescribed audit report within the stipulated time. As the assessee failed to comply with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Act and subsequently levied penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- vide penalty order dated 19.08.2025. 03. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 135 days. The assessee explained that the delay was occasioned due to miscommunication between the assessee and his Authorised Representative, as a result of which the assessee was not informed about the passing of the penalty order within the prescribed period. The Ld. CIT(A), however, did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 04. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The explanation furnished by the assessee for the delay of 135 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) is that the delay occurred on account of miscommunication between the assessee and his Authorised Representative. Considering the explanation furnished and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the delay deserves to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. The assessee should not be denied an opportunity of having the appeal adjudicated on merits merely on account of such communication gap. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 135 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. Printed from counselvise.com Page 3 of 3 ITA No. 679/RJT/2026 Devyatbhai Kalotara CIT(A). Since the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we further impose a cost of Rs.500/- upon the assessee, to be deposited with the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The assessee shall furnish proof of such deposit before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to his file for fresh adjudication on merits. 05. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 9th day of October, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] [ Shri Sonjoy Sarma ] लेखा सदÖय/Accountant Member Æयाियक सदÖय/Judicial Member राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 09/10/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The assessee 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By order //True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot Printed from counselvise.com "