MANMOHANBHAI JAMNADAS DOMADIYA,JUNAGADH V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JUNAGADH

ITA 252/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Manmohanbhai Jamnadas Domadiya, an agriculturist and semi-literate individual from a remote village, who appealed against an ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was initially barred by limitation due to a delay of 52 days, attributed to the appellant's lack of awareness of the appellate order and notices, which were sent to an outdated email address of his former tax consultant. The Tribunal found that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and condoned it. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to represent his case, violating the principles of natural justice, and thus remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315931 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHEERAJ KUMR GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: RACHIT GAJERA
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"ITA No. 252/Rjt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Monmohanbhai J Domadiya Page | 1 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.252/RJT/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[/Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manmohanbhai Jamnadas Domadiya Nava Plot Sheri, Villge Vadal, TA & Dist. Junagadh-362 310 बनाम/ Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Junagadh-362 001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIPPD 8265 P (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Rachit Gajera, AR राजèव कȧ ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख /Date of Hearing : 15/05/2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 16/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18, 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 06.12.2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Act on 12.11.2019. 2. The appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 52 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition for condoning the delay are reproduced below: ITA No. 252/Rjt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Monmohanbhai J Domadiya Page | 2 “1. In this case the appellate order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the AY 2017-18 has been passed on 6th December, 2024. 2. In view of the same the present appeal ought to have been filed before Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on or before 2nd March, 2024. However, this appeal is filed today on 21st April, 2025 and accordingly there is delay of 50 days. The delay has been caused on account of reasonable reasons and circumstances stated hereunder: a. The appellant is an agriculturist and semi-literate person residing in small and remote village viz. Vadal. b. The appellant is not versed with the e-mail and Income Tax proceedings being conducted under electronic mode, where notices are delivered on email. This is the maiden experience of the appellant in his entire life tenure. c. In view of this practical difficulty, while filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A) the e-mail id of the Authorized Representative has been provided in the Appeal Memo. Relevant portion is extracted hereunder: 17 Address to which notices may be sent to the appellant Flat/Door/Block No. Name of premises/building/village Road/Street/Post Office Nava Plot Sheri Vadal nr jnd jtp high way Area/Locality Town/City/District State Country At vadal Tal Junagadh GUJARAT INDIA Pincode Mobile No. Email address 361305 361305 9375589116 [e-mail] d. However, in the course of the appellate proceeding all the notices re sent on the mail-id viz. [e-mail] verification of the same it was noted that the mail-id is belonging to ex-tax consultant of the appellant who never intimated about the notices to the appellant. e. Under such circumstances the appellant was completely unaware about the notices of hearing uploaded on portal as well as the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) and hence he could not inform to the Authorized Representative in turn. Similarly, since the notices were not sent on the e-mail id of the Authorized Representative h was also unaware of the notices issued and order passed consequently. Copy of the screen shot of the notices issued containing the email id on which they were sent are attached herewith. f. Recently the appellant has received a physical notice of penalty dated 16.04.2025. copy of the notice is also attached herewith. The impugned notice contends that the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed by the CIT(A) g. The AR of the appellant also verified e-proceedings from the Income Tax portal. On verification it was noted that in this case an ex-parte order has been passed by ld. CIT(A) and hence the only remedy available with the appellant was to approach Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the impugned order. ITA No. 252/Rjt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Monmohanbhai J Domadiya Page | 3 h. The appellant arranged the appeal fee challan of Rs.10,000 and the same has been paid by him on today i.e. 21st April, 2025 and this appeal, therefore, being filed today with delay of 50 days.” 3. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the assessee that delay was because of uploaded e-mail id of previous tax consultant. The assessee did not have any knowledge of impugned order passed on 06.12.2024. It was stated that assessee had no intention in delay the filing of the appeal. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the small delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional. The assessee is not going to be benefited by filing the appeal late. The consultant on whom the appeal was outsourced could not inform about any of notice nor the fact regarding impugned order being uploaded on the portal was shared with the assessee, hence, there was small delay of 52 days in filing the appeal had occurred. Therefore, this delay may be condoned, and the appeal may be decided on merit. 4. On the other hand, the Learned Senior DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of the delay and stated that assessee’s appeal may be dismissed. 5. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. I note that the order of the ld.CIT(A) was served on other email-id and it was not served on the email-id registered with the Income Tax Department. Therefore, the assessee whenever, he got the order physically, he immediately took steps to file appeal before the Tribunal. Besides, there was mistake committed by the advocate that the password was also not available with the concerned person and therefore the assessee should not be penalized on account of mistake committed by the person concerned. I note that this delay is neither intentional nor deliberate, ITA No. 252/Rjt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Monmohanbhai J Domadiya Page | 4 therefore, in the interest of justice, I condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for hearing on merit. 6. On merit, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order. The Ld.Counsel of the assessee filed additional evidence which was unable to submit before the lower authorities due to unavoidable circumstances. The Ld.Counsel submitted that this clearly substantiates the nature and source of cash deposit as well as assessee’s claim made u/s 69A of the Act. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submits that the Ld.CIT(A) passed the order u/s 250 of the Act on 06.12.2024 without hearing the assessee in violation of the principles of natural justice. The assessee could not represent his case before CIT(A) and the order being an ex parte, stood vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice. The assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond his control. Adequate opportunity of hearing was not given to the assessee; therefore, ld. Counsel contended that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the AO. He undertakes to be vigilant and furnish explanation and details expeditiously. 7. On the other hand, Ld.Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. He stated that assessee has been negligent in pursuing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A). 8. I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. I find that both lower authorities have passed ex parte orders. Evidently, the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by AO and Ld.CIT(A). Hence, addition u/s 69A of Rs.22,95,000/- have been made by AO, which was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel of assessee submitted that non- compliance by assessee was not deliberate but due to unavoidable ITA No. 252/Rjt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Monmohanbhai J Domadiya Page | 5 circumstances. The Ld. Counsel submitted that non-compliance was due to unavoidable circumstances. I find that the Ld.CIT(A) has not passed an order as per the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act and dismissed the appeal of assessee only on the ground of non-compliance. The order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is clearly violative of the express provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, which provides that the appellate orders of the Ld.CIT(A) are to state the points arising in the appeal, the decision of the authority thereon and the reasons for such decisions. The underlying rationale of the provision is that such orders are subject to further appeal to the appellate Tribunal. Speaking order would obviously enable a party to know precise points decided in his favour or against him. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the assessment order was confirmed by Ld.CIT(A) in ex parte order, I am of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to contest its case on merit. In the interest of justice, I set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO with a direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to assessee. The assessee is directed to be vigilant and to furnish all details and explanation as needed by AO by not seeking adjournment without valid reason. With this direction, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose Order pronounced in the open court on 16/05/2025. Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) लेखा सदÖय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER राजकोट /Rajkot Ǒदनांक/ Date: 16/05/2025 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S ITA No. 252/Rjt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Monmohanbhai J Domadiya Page | 6 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 // True Copy // By order/आदेश से, सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, राजकोट "