JAYVIRSINH MAHENDRASING RAJ,BHARUCH V. ITO, WARD 1(1), BHARUCH

ITA 75/SRT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jayvirsinh Mahendrasinh Raj, the appellant, who challenged an order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2016-17. The primary issue was the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) due to it being filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The appellant argued that the delay was due to an outdated email registered on the e-filing portal, which belonged to his previous tax consultant, leading to his unawareness of the tax proceedings. The ITAT, referencing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., prioritized substantial justice over technicalities and decided to condone the delay and remand the case back to the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 789830 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAMITA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: MAYUR THAKKAR
• Keywords: Period of limitation

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 75/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jayvirsinh Mahendrasinh Raj 1, Vantapanchayat, Faliya, at SaykhaVagra, Dist. Bharuch PAN – APSPR8909N Vs ITO, Ward 1(1) Railway Stn Road, Near, Indian Oil, Old Tow, Bharuch Gujrat (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Mayur Thakkar, CA Revenue by Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.11.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 20.12.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. From the records, we noticed that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO and Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the same was filed beyond the period of limitation. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 75/SRT/2025. Jayvirsinh Mahendrasinh Raj, Surat 3. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that assessee has categorically submitted that he was not aware about the tax proceeding and the email id registered on the e-filing portal was of his previous tax consultant and thus assessee ‘explained’ the circumstance because of which he could not file the appeal within time before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view, the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji& Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC),wherein it has been held that wheresubstantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non- deliberatedelay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred.In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is ofprime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delaywhich occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression\"sufficient cause\" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay infiling the appeal before Ld. CIT(A).Therefore we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A). 4. Since we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). From the records we also noticed that Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 75/SRT/2025. Jayvirsinh Mahendrasinh Raj, Surat assessee was ex-parte before AO as well therefore we are of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before AO. Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of AO for deciding the appeal afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee 5. Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the AO independently in accordance with law. 6. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/11/2025 Sd/- Sd/-Sd Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Surat: Dated: 25/11/2025 KRK, Sr. PS. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 75/SRT/2025. Jayvirsinh Mahendrasinh Raj, Surat Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Surat Printed from counselvise.com "