DHARMENDRA JINENDRA JAIN,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1432/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Dharmendra Jinendra Jain, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which dismissed his appeal in limine due to an inordinate delay of 1116 days in filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to the advice of the appellant's accountant and tax consultant, who mistakenly believed that a previous appeal for a different assessment year covered the same issues. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, citing the delay as inordinate and lacking sufficient cause. The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide specific observations on the application for condonation of delay and thus set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order, restoring the matter for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 777377 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Mr. Ravella Ramakrishna, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-5
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 69C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member Dharmendra Jinendra Jain 1 R. B. House, Opp. Gun House, Khanpur 380001, Gujarat Ahmedabad PAN:ACLPJ0510F (Appellant) Vs The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Rupesh R. Shah, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 25-09-2025 Date of pronouncement : 29-09-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 25.08.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal: ITA No: 1432/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 1432/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No Dharmendra Jinendra Jain vs. ITO 2 1. The Id, CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has dismissed appeal of the appellant in limini on the ground that delay in filling of an appeal is not unintended and bonafide as prayed by the appellant. Appellant prays that an affidavit explaining the facts for the delay Condon Application may be allowed in the Interest of justice and matter may be sent back to CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi or Jurisdictional AQ to decide a matter fresh on merits in the interest of justice. 2. That appellant prays that there is no defect in filing of Tribunal Fee of Rs.500/- for presenting this appeal because of CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has passed order in limini without deciding the appeal on merits. Your appellant relies on direct decision in jurisdictional tribunal IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD. 1.T.A. Nos. 286 to 288/Ahd/2023 followed the decision IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES \"A\": HYDERABAD in the case of Mr. Ravella Ramakrishna, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-5 In ITA.No.1166, 1167, 1168 & 1169/Hyd/2014 3. Alternative Plea on Facts that both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in not allowing legitimate job work expenses of Rs.9,00,000 which was paid to Times Press Pvt. Ltd. while passing the order under S.143(3) on the ground that company is stuck off by MCA, the company and the payment to a struck off company cannot be accepted in spite of appellant has produced various evidence. 4. That your appellant reserve right to amend/ alter/ modify any ground or grounds during the pendency of the appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Dharmendra Jinendra Jain, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 08.08.2018 declaring an income of Rs. 11,75,900/-. The assessee was engaged in the business of publishing daily newspapers and earned income from newspaper sales and advertisements. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had made payments of Rs. 9,00,000/- to Times Press Pvt. Ltd. towards job work charges, which is a related concern u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Since the said company had been struck off by the MCA, the assessee was called upon to justify the payment and file supporting documents. However, in the absence of explanation, the Assessing Officer held Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 1432/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No Dharmendra Jinendra Jain vs. ITO 3 that payment to a struck off company could not be accepted as genuine and accordingly disallowed the sum of Rs. 9,00,000/-, and treated it as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 4. In appeal, CIT(Appeals), CIT(Appeals) noted that there was a delay of 1116 deys in filing of appeal. The assessee explained that the present appeal was delayed since the assessee relied on his accountant and tax consultant, who wrongly advised him that since an appeal was already filed for A.Y. 2017-18 on the same issue, there was no need to file a separate appeal for A.Y. 2018-19. On this basis, the assessee sought condonation of delay of 1116 days and also filed Affidavits from himself and his consultant. The CIT(A) considered the explanation, the grounds of appeal, and the supporting Affidavit but observed that the delay was inordinate and not supported by sufficient cause as required under section 249(3) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) noted that the appeal ought to have been filed within 30 days from the date of the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, but the assessee had approached only after more than three years. The CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on several judicial precedents, including decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, which held that while “sufficient cause” under limitation law may receive liberal interpretation in cases of short delays. However, inordinate and unexplained delays caused by negligence or deliberate inaction cannot be condoned as it prejudices the rights of the other party and defeats the legislative intent of finality in litigation. The CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee failed to demonstrate any reasonable or compelling grounds that prevented him from filing the appeal within time. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 1432/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No Dharmendra Jinendra Jain vs. ITO 4 Accordingly, the CIT(A) held that the delay of 1116 days could not be condoned and therefore the appeal could not be admitted. In view of the same, the appeal was rejected in limine and dismissed without going into the merits of the case. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without giving any specific comments on the application for condonation of delay filed before him. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that that the CIT(Appeals) ought to have given a specific finding on the infirmities in the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee. 6. In response, Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by CIT(Appeals) in the appellate order. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. However, we find that the CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without giving any specific observations on the application for condonation of delay of 1116 days filed before him. In our considered view, the issue of condonation of delay is a vital matter which requires specific examination and a speaking finding from the appellate authority. In the interest of justice, we therefore set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to consider afresh the assessee’s application for condonation of delay of 1116 days in filing of the appeal, examine the supporting affidavits and Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 1432/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No Dharmendra Jinendra Jain vs. ITO 5 submissions, and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29 -09-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 29/09/2025 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद Printed from counselvise.com "