KIRANKUMAR KISHORBHAI ZANKAT,KODINAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4 JND, VERAVAL

ITA 244/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Kirakumar Kishorbhai Zankat against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Rajkot-3, which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was initially filed late, and the assessee sought condonation of delay citing severe medical issues and a change in tax consultants. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay convincing and in the interest of substantial justice, decided to condone the delay and remit the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360610 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• 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: DHEERAJ KUMR GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: DIVYESH SODHA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट Ɋायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.244/RJT/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[/Assessment Year : 2013-14 Kirakumar Kishorbhai Zankat Dr. Kishorkumar Zankat, Shivam Park Society, Panadar Road, Kodinar-362 720 बनाम/ Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, , JND Veraval-362 265 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAGPZ 7420 F (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Divyesh Sodha, AR राजèव कȧ ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख /Date of Hearing : 14/05/2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 23/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 25.01.2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, on 29.03.2016. 2. Appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14, is barred by limitation by 363 days. The assessee moved a petition for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay, are reproduced below: ITA No. 244/Rjt/2025 AY: 13-14 Kirankumar K. Zankat Page | 2 1.The present appeal is filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal against the order dated 25/01/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Rajkot-3 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 2 There has been an inadvertent delay in filing the present appeal, which was solely due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. 3 The appellant suffered from severe lower limb radiating pain due to L5-S1 PID (Prolapsed Intervertebral Disc), for which he was undergoing conservative physiotherapy and lumbar traction treatment. The medical certificate dated 02/02/2024, issued by Ambujanagar Multi-specialty Hospital, clearly states that the appellant was advised rest for six months, i.e., from 02/02/2024 to 02/08/2024 4 After the completion of the advised rest period, the appellant required additional time to stabilize his health condition before resuming his routine activities, including legal and financial matters. 5 Once the appellant was fit to engage in legal proceedings, he sought advice from another Chartered Accountant regarding the process of filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. Due to these medical reasons, the transition to a new consultant, and the procedural formalities involved, the delay in filing the appeal was further prolonged. 6 In view of the above, the appellant respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits, in the interest of justice” 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing of appeal. In the affidavit, it has been stated that due to his medical problems, assessee could not concentrate his tax appeal. It is also stated that due to change of tax consultant’s office, the delay has been occurred. The Ld. Counsel submitted that delay of 363 days was neither deliberate nor intentional based on the contention of the petition filed for condonation of delay therefore, in the interest of justice the delay may be condoned and appeal may be heard on merit. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Senior DR for the revenue submitted that the assessee failed to prove the sufficient cause to condone the delay for 363 days; therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. ITA No. 244/Rjt/2025 AY: 13-14 Kirankumar K. Zankat Page | 3 5. I have heard both the parties on the preliminary issue for condonation of delay and noted that assessee was suffering severe lower limb radiating and unable to walk. The medical certificate is also produced. I find that the delay of 363 days in filing the appeal was not deliberate and intentional on the part of assessee. Moreover, assessee is not going to be benefitted by filing appeal belatedly. It is now fairly settled that when technical consideration and cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice may be preferred. 6. I am of the view that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed to act in leisure and make a mockery of enacted law, because law and provisions are laid down to benefit both sides of litigation. Be that as it may, I have to do justice and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji and others, reported in 167 ITR 471, (1988) SC 897) (7) observed as follows: “4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay……...” 7. When I weigh these two aspects then the side of justice becomes heavier and casts a duty on us to deliver justice. I note that the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay, was convincing, and the reason would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, as narrated above, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned and appeal of the assessee should be decided on merits in accordance with law. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and I proceed to decide the case on merit. ITA No. 244/Rjt/2025 AY: 13-14 Kirankumar K. Zankat Page | 4 8. Merit of the case, at the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during assessment proceedings, notices were served on different dates, therefore, assessee made compliance with the said notices issued by Assessing Officer and assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the appellate proceedings, Ld.CIT(A) issued noticed on old email-id of the assessee, which the assessee was not using. The assessee had informed the department, his new email-id, on which the ld. CIT(A), did not send the notices, as a result the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by Assessing Officer. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee wants to submit additional evidence and documents before Assessing Officer to prove his claim before Assessing Officer. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench that one more opportunity should be allowed to prove his case before the Assessing Officer, in the interest of justice. Therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. Senior DR for the revenue did not have any objection, if the matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 10. I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A) due to non receipt of notices. I note that Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench that one more opportunity should be given to prove assessee’s case before Assessing Officer. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of ITA No. 244/Rjt/2025 AY: 13-14 Kirankumar K. Zankat Page | 5 being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. It is needless to say that the assessee will be at liberty to adduce any evidences as deemed relevant before the assessing officer at the time of assessment proceedings in consequence to this order and the Assessing Officer shall, allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order which is fair and judicious. 11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/05/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) लेखा सदÖय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER राजकोट /Rajkot Ǒदनांक/ Date: 23/05/2025 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S आदेश कì ÿितिलिप अúेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथê/ The Appellant  ÿÂयथê/ The Respondent  आयकर आयुĉ/ CIT  आयकर आयुĉ(अपील)/ The CIT(A)  िवभागीय ÿितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  गाडªफाईल/ Guard File By order/आदेश से, // True Copy // सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, राजकोट "