JAYESHKUMAR HARJANI,PANCHMAHAL V. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(2), VADODARA

ITA 2072/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Jayeshkumar Harjani, a proprietor of J. P. Enterprise, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which dismissed his appeal on the grounds of a 17-day delay in filing. The original assessment added significant amounts to his income under sections 68 and 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, citing unexplained cash deposits and household expenditures from unexplained sources. The Tribunal found that the delay was not inordinate and was due to the assessee's lack of familiarity with procedural requirements, thus condoning the delay and directing a fresh examination of the case on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 47097 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAMTA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL MALOO
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 68; 69C

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद Ɋायपीठ “SMC“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सुŵी सुिचũा काɾले, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ। ] ] BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /ITA No. 2072/Ahd/2024 िनधाŊरण वषŊ /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jayeshkumar Harjani Prop. of J. P. Enterprise, Municipal Shopping Centre, B/H. New Bus Stand, At. PO. Godhra, Dist. Panchmahal, Godhra, Gujarat – 389001 बनाम/ v/s. Income Tax Officer Ward- 4(1)(2), Vadodara ̾थायी लेखा सं./PAN: ACOPH2412D अपीलाथŎ/ (Appellant) Ů̝ यथŎ/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sunil Maloo, AR Revenue by : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 11/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017-18, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine on the ground of delay. ITA No. 2072/Ahd/2024 Jayeshkumar Harjani vs. ITO A.Y. 2017-18 2 Facts of the Case 2. The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of distribution of mobile recharge coupons and M-Paisa products. He filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 05.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 3,72,030/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on 27.12.2019, determining the total income at Rs. 17,56,500/- making the following additions:  Rs. 12,40,470/- under section 68 towards unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period;  Rs. 1,44,000/- under section 69C towards household expenditure allegedly incurred from unexplained sources. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 13.02.2020, i.e., with a delay of 17 days from the prescribed time limit under section 249(2)(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), without adjudicating the appeal on merits, dismissed the same in limine on the ground of delay, holding that no sufficient cause had been shown for condonation. 4. Not satisfied with the order of CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following solitary ground: “The Ld. CIT(A)’s order may kindly be set aside since Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in dismissing assessee’s appeal without considering the merits of case merely for delay of 17 days in filing of appeal due to sufficient reasonable cause.” 5. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee is a small taxpayer and was not fully aware of the procedural formalities, and the delay in filing the ITA No. 2072/Ahd/2024 Jayeshkumar Harjani vs. ITO A.Y. 2017-18 3 appeal occurred due to inadvertent oversight. It was submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor mala fide and should have been condoned in the interest of justice. It was further submitted that the assessee had submitted relevant documents, including ledger confirmation from Vodafone, stock records and sales register before the Ld. CIT(A) in support of his grounds, but the same were not considered as the appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of delay. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relied upon the findings of the Assessing Officer and reiterated the reasoning given in the assessment order. However, the DR fairly submitted that since the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merits, he would have no serious objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material available on record. The central issue before us is whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine merely on account of a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal, without condoning the delay or adjudicating the matter on merits. 8. The appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) on 13.02.2020, as against the statutory due date of 27.01.2020 (i.e., 30 days from service of assessment order dated 27.12.2019). Thus, there is a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order, observed that the assessee had not provided a satisfactory explanation for such delay and accordingly declined to condone the same. ITA No. 2072/Ahd/2024 Jayeshkumar Harjani vs. ITO A.Y. 2017-18 4 9. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee is a small trader, engaged in the business of mobile recharge coupons, and is not conversant with legal formalities. It was submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor mala fide but was caused due to the assessee's lack of awareness of procedural compliance, particularly the requirement of filing a condonation petition. It was further submitted that relevant documentary evidence was filed before the CIT(A) in support of the appeal, but the same remained unconsidered due to summary dismissal. 10. In our considered opinion, the approach adopted by the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal on a short technical delay, without considering the merits of the case, is not in consonance with the settled principles of natural justice. The power to condone delay is a discretionary power, which must be exercised judiciously and with a view to do substantial justice. The delay of 17 days, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be regarded as inordinate or unexplained, particularly when the assessee had already initiated the appellate process within a reasonable time. 11. Ordinarily, the assessee does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause is decided on merits after hearing the parties. 12. In the present case, there is no evidence of negligence, indifference, or mala fides on the part of the assessee. The delay is marginal, the explanation is reasonable, and more importantly, refusal to condone would result in ITA No. 2072/Ahd/2024 Jayeshkumar Harjani vs. ITO A.Y. 2017-18 5 foreclosing the assessee’s right to be heard on serious additions made in the assessment order. 13. In our view, justice should not be sacrificed at the altar of technicalities, particularly when the appellate remedy under the Act is substantive and meant to redress genuine grievances. Therefore, in the interest of justice, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to condone the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 14. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to admit the appeal and adjudicate the same afresh on merits, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 11th April, 2025 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 11/04/2025 S. K. Sinha, Sr. PS True Copy आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)/Pr.CIT-1, Vadodara 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सȑािपत Ůित //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad "