HARDIKKUMAR MAGANBHAI THUMAR,RAJKOT V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1)(1), RAJKOT

ITA 625/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Hardikkumar Maganbhai Thumar, the appellant, who contested an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which was based on an earlier order by the Assessing Officer under sections 143(3) and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dispute centered on the addition of Rs. 7,40,673 under section 40(a)(ia) and a variation of Rs. 12,508 under section 143(1)(a) concerning non-deduction of TDS on commission payments. The appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and due to lack of proper notice of the hearings and the impugned order, which was only discovered upon checking the status on the CIT(A) portal. Both parties agreed to a remand for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 827120 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHOR GHEEWALA; LD
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Principle of natural justice; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

"ITA No. 625/Rjt/2025 Hardikbhai Maganbhai Thumar Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 625/RJT/2025 Ǔनधा[रणवष[ / Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Hardikkumar Maganbhai Thumar Jetalsar, Jetalsar Post, Jetpur Rajkot- 360360.Gujarat Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1),/RKT. It Office, New Aaykar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot. Gujarat 360360 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AXUPT8837F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Kishor Gheewala, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR Date of Hearing : 23 / 12 /2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05 / 01 /2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA JM; Captioned two appeals filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21, is directed against order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated 08/07/2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) read with section 144B of the I.T. Act, on dated 12/09/2022. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 625/Rjt/2025 Hardikbhai Maganbhai Thumar Page | 2 The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: - 1. Addition of Rs. 7,40,673/- u/s 40(a)(ia) & Variation u/s 143(1)(a) of Rs. 12,508/- The registry has informed that the present appeal has been filed after a delay of 25 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed condonation of delay of application. Referring to same, Ld. AR explained that the assessee is a manufacture of textile other than handloom items who for A.Y. 2020-21. The assessee has filed return declaring of Rs. 7,63,830/- on dated-30.01.2021. the case was selected for scrutiny to verify the business expensive notice for issued by the Assessing Officer in response the assessee on 16.07.2021 and 27.07.2021 had submitted the following details such as computation of income, form 3CB and form 3CD, ledger of bank charges, bank interest, advertisement expenses and other misc. expenses along with written note. It is seen from the return of income filed by assessee for the AY 2020-21 claimed as expense as commission of amount to Rs. 82,96,723/- has been paid to others. However, it is reflected in the annexure-E of the audit report dated 15.01.2021 that the tax has been deducted only on the amount of Rs. 58,27,812/- u/s 194H as commission/brokerage. Assessee failed to produce satisfactory evidences to substantiate the facts. As per the section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, being disallowance for non-deduction or non- payment of TDS only 30% of the amount on which the tax has not been deducted is to be disallowed and added to the income. Hence, 30% of Rs. 24,68,911/- i.e. Rs. 7,40,673/- is disallowed due to the non-deduction of TDS on the commission paid to Ld. AR of the assessee. Further explain that Ld. CIT(A) has issued four notices 27.01.2025, 04.03.2025,28.03.2025,09.04.2025 all remain uncompiled with by the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 625/Rjt/2025 Hardikbhai Maganbhai Thumar Page | 3 assessee. Notices of hearing as well as impugned order under online mechanism which remained unnoticed by assessee. Further, there was no service of notices or impugned order through physical mode upon assessee. Therefore, the assessee did not have any information about fixation of hearings or about passing of impugned orders. Subsequently, it is only when for the verification of portal about the states of case before CIT(A) the assessee came to know of the impugned order having been passed ex-parte by CIT(A) Immediately thereafter, the assessee sought legal advice from professionals and finally arranged to file this appeal with delay. Ld. AR very humbly submitted that there is no deliberate lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He further submitted that the reason of delay is as explained in the condonation-application. The Ld. AR further submitted that the AO has made addition in respect of TDS not deducted on amount of 24,68,911/- The assessee has sufficient documents to explain the issue of TDS to Ld. CIT(A). The assessee's case is meritorious and the assessee should be given one more opportunity to submit a detailed explanation to Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR, therefore, made twin prayers ie. the delay in filing of appeal be condoned and this case ought to be remanded to Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after hearing assessee: 3. Ld. DR for Revenue did not have any objection to the prayer of Ld. AR. He, however, requested that the assessee should be directed to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). 4. We have considered the submissions made by Ld. AR on behalf of assessees and in absence of any contrary fact or material available on record, the assessee is found to have a \"sufficient cause\" for delay in filing present Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 625/Rjt/2025 Hardikbhai Maganbhai Thumar Page | 4 appeal as narrated above in foregoing para. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a \"sufficient cause\" for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also a settled position by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in this appeal, At the same time, as agreed by both sides and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to give one more opportunity to assessee so that the assessee can represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) for a proper adjudication. Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee, uninfluenced by his earlier order in any manner. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by Ld. CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 5. In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed for statical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 05 / 01 /2026. Sd/ Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNT MEMBER JUDICAL MEMBER Rajkot Ǒदनांक/ Date: 05 / 01 /2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 625/Rjt/2025 Hardikbhai Maganbhai Thumar Page | 5 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot Printed from counselvise.com "