LAXMANBHAI PREMJIBHAI SAVANI,JUNAGADH V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 JND, JUNAGADH

ITA 845/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Laxmanbhai Premjibhai Savani, the assessee, who appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was based on an assessment order by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issue was the non-condonation of a 16-day delay in filing the appeal, attributed to the assessee's illness. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay convincing and in the interest of justice, decided to condone the delay and remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, ensuring the assessee is given a fair opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 835522 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji and others, reported in 167 ITR 471, (1988 SC 897)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHEERAJ KUMAR GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: R.D. LALCHANDANI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट Ɋायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.845/RJT/2025 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Laxmanbhai Premjibhai Savani, 55-56, Nilkanth Nagar Society, Behind Gayatri School, Junagadh – 362001, Gujarat बनाम/ Vs. ITO, Ward – 1, Junagadh ˕ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANXPS3415R (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri R. D. Lalchandani, AR राजˢ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 03/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12/02/2026 आदेश /ORDER PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2015-16, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Pune [Ld. CIT(A)], dated 30.09.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 28.12.2017. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that during the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 16 days, despite of sufficient cause being explained before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assesse stated that he was sick and therefore, he could not sign the appeal memo on time, as he was admitted in hospital for some time, therefore, the minor delay of 16 days before the Ld. CIT(A) has resulted. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.845/Rjt/2025/AY 2015-16 Laxmanbhai Premjibhai Savani Page 2 of 3 interests of justice, minor delay may be condoned, and the appeal of the assessee may be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has made compliance before the AO, therefore, instead of remitting the issue back to the file of AO, the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 3. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee to condone the delay before ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We are 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 & provisions are laid down to benefit both sides of litigation. Be that as it may, we 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) observes .... “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.” When we weigh these two aspects then the side of justice becomes heavier and casts a duty on us to deliver justice. We note that the reasons explained by the assessee for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A). Having heard both the parties, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A). 5. On merit, we note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the Ld. CIT(A). We also note that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. We also note that assessee did not submit entire documents and evidences before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Ld. CIT(A). We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.845/Rjt/2025/AY 2015-16 Laxmanbhai Premjibhai Savani Page 3 of 3 interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we 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 Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. It is needless to say that the assessee will be at liberty to adduce any evidence as deemed relevant before the Ld. CIT(A) at the time of appellate proceedings in consequence to this order and the Ld. CIT(A) 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. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 12/02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha) (Dr. Arjun Lal Saini) Ɋाियक सद˟/ Judicial Member लेखा सद˟/Accountant Member Rajkot Date: 12/02/2026. आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथŎ/ The Assessee  ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent  आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT  आयकर आयुƅ(अपील)/ The CIT(A)  िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, सूरत/ DR, ITAT, Rajkot  गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File By order, // TRUE COPY // (Truce Copy) Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot Printed from counselvise.com "