DILEEPKUMAR BANKEYLAL PRADHAN,BHARATPUR V. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(7), VADODARA

ITA 713/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Dileepkumar Bankeylal Pradhan, the appellant, contesting an order from the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The appellant raised several grievances, including the failure of the Assessing Officer to provide an opportunity to be heard and the lack of a video conferencing facility, which impeded the proper presentation of his case. The appellant also criticized the CIT(A) for not addressing pertinent grounds and for imposing irrelevant conditions while adjudicating the case. However, the primary reason for the dismissal of the appeal was procedural, specifically the failure to file a condonation application for the delay in filing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 112316 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATIK SHARMA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

"ITA No.713/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dileepkumar Bankeylal Pradhan vs. ITO Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.713/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dileepkumar Bankeylal Pradhan, C/o. J.N. Goyal & Company, C-162, Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan – 321 001 [AWIPP 5775 B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(1)(7), Vadodara. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 16.04.2025 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 17.01.2024, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is contended that the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in neglecting to address the issue concerning the failure of the Ld. Assessing Officer to afford the appellant an opportunity to be heard. 2. Furthermore, it is submitted that, both on the merits and in accordance with established legal principles, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not facilitating the provision of a video conferencing opportunity to the appellant, thereby impeding the proper presentation of his case. ITA No.713/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dileepkumar Bankeylal Pradhan vs. ITO Page 2 of 3 3. The appellate order is non-explanatory, lacking rationale, failing to address pertinent grounds, and neglecting to adjudicate relevant issues. 4. The facts and circumstances of the case were not duly considered by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the appellant's legal claim. 5 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) imposed irrelevant conditions while granting the appellant's claim, overlooking the pertinent facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The actions of both the learned Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) appear to disregard established legal principles, judicial precedents, and the fundamental tenets enshrined in the Constitution.” 3. The present appeal is filed by the assessee on 12.04.2024 and registered on 15.04.2024. The Registry has notified the defect vide notice dated 16.04.2024 i.e. appeal is time barred by 26 days and condonation application not filed. The same was properly intimated through various notices to the assessee and the assessee through his Representative has filed various adjournment applications from time to time since 13.08.2024. When the matter was called out on 12.03.2025, the Registry presented the adjournment application dated 12.08.2024 stating that the same was received via e-mail for adjournment again. There are nine occasions on which the assessee sought adjournment through his Authorised Representative without filing the condonation application as the appeal is time barred by 26 days. Thus, the defect of the appeal has not been removed by the assessee despite taking several adjournments and hence the appeal is dismissed. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 16th April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Vice President Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 16th April, 2025 ITA No.713/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dileepkumar Bankeylal Pradhan vs. ITO Page 3 of 3 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad "