LAXMICHAND KAPURJI PADHIYAR,DEESA V. THE ITO, WARD-2, PALANPUR

ITA 1302/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Laxmichand Kapurji Padhiyar, the proprietor of L K Trading Co., who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was initially dismissed due to non-prosecution as the assessee failed to comply with notices and did not submit written submissions. The ITAT found that the dismissal was not in accordance with the law as it did not address the grounds raised by the assessee. The assessee had faced multiple additions to his income, which were not attended to due to the unavailability of his AR, who was involved in legal proceedings and under judicial custody during the relevant period.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772643 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NITIN KULKARNI
• Assessee Lawyers: VIKASH PANDYA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Non-deduction of tax

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1302/Ahd/2025 (िनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Laxmichand Kapurji Padhiyar Prop. of L K Trading Co., 21, 1st Floor, Vimal Paras Complex, Opp. Jalaram Temple, Deesa, Gujarat – 385535 बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Palanpur èथायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ALOPP1226E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथȸ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Vikash Pandya, A.R. Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 26/08/2025 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 22.01.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. The Registry has noted the appeal to be time barred by 66 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay stating that the delay occurred on account of the fact that the legal representative, who was engaged to represent his case and assist in filing the appeal, was involved in certain legal Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1302/Ahd/2025 [Laxmichand Kapurji Padhiyar vs. ITO] A.Y. 2016-17 - 2 – proceedings and was placed under judicial custody during the relevant period. Owing to the said legal complications and unavailability of the AR he was unable to get timely and appropriate professional guidance or representation for preparation and filing of the appeal. He contended that after becoming aware of the prolonged absence of the earlier AR and his inability to act in the matter, he appointed a new AR who immediately took necessary steps and ensured that the appeal was filed without any further delay. He contended that the delay was purely unintentional and caused due to the unfortunate and unavoidable circumstances. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that for the reason his AR was in judicial custody, the assessment proceedings remained unattended, resulting in the passing of ex parte order making addition to the tune of approximately Rs.20 Lakhs to his returned income of Rs.1,85,170/- i.e. addition being made multiple times of the returned income. He contended that even proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) could not be attended for the same reason resulting in the multifold addition made being confirmed. He pleaded therefore that in the interest of justice the delay in filing of the appeal be condoned and the matter be restored back to the AO for reconsideration. 3. The Ld. DR objected to the condonation of delay. 4. Considering the explanation of the assessee for delay of 66 days in filing of the appeal duly supported by an affidavit, explaining that the delay was on account of non-availability of his AR who was in judicial custody and because of which, both Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1302/Ahd/2025 [Laxmichand Kapurji Padhiyar vs. ITO] A.Y. 2016-17 - 3 – the assessment and CIT(A) proceedings remained unattended resulting in addition made to his income multiple time to that returned by him and being confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), I am of the view that the assessee has adduced sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the present appeal, and in the interest of justice therefore I condone the delay of 66 days in the filing of the present appeal. 5. Proceeding to adjudicate the appeal before me, I have gone through the orders of the authorities below and I have noted that the AO had passed an ex parte order making several additions to the income of the assessee which are as under: i. Disallowance of cold storage rent expenses to the tune of Rs.11,62,975/- on account of non-deduction of tax at source thereon u/s40(a)(ia) of the Act. ii. Claim of agricultural income of Rs.6,87,800/- as exempt disallowed and further treated as income from other sources in the absence of supporting documentary evidences. iii. Disallowance of housing loan interest expenses of Rs.1,29,399/- in the absence of any supporting documentary evidence. 6. The Ld. CIT(A), I have noted, has simply held the appeal as non-maintainable in the absence of any prosecution of the said appeal by the assessee. He noted the repeated failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the notices of hearing issued during appellate proceedings and in filing of any written submission by the assessee, and accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1302/Ahd/2025 [Laxmichand Kapurji Padhiyar vs. ITO] A.Y. 2016-17 - 4 – 7. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), I hold, is not in consonance with law. The provisions of Section 250 of the Act which provides the procedure in first appeal, at sub-section (6), clearly states that the order of Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal should be in writing and stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. There is no scope, therefore, for the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal merely for non-prosecution without dealing with the ground raised by the assessee before him. In the light of the same, since, the Ld. CIT(A)’s order is not in accordance with law, I consider it fit to restore the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and thereafter decide the issue raised before him in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced on 26/08/2025 Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 26/08/2025 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश कȧ Ĥितिलǒप अĒेǒषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƠ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƠ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. ǒवभागीय Ĥितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "