NAVRATAN BHAVARLAL SINGADIYA,AHMEDABAD V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1(3)(1) PREVIOUSLY WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1297/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Navratan Bhavarlal Singadiya, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was initially delayed by 431 days due to the appellant's lack of awareness of the CIT(A)'s order, which was only discovered when a new Chartered Accountant reviewed the appellant's tax portal. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay, attributing it to the negligence of the appellant's previous consultant, and thus condoned the delay. The Tribunal also noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were passed ex parte, and considering the circumstances, decided to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772642 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, 1987 AIR 1353
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NITIN KULKARNI
• Assessee Lawyers: DIVYA RATHOD
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1297/Ahd/2025 (िनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Navratan Bhavarlal Singadiya Railwaypura Fruit Market, Kalupur Rly. Station Road, Kalupur, Amdavad, Gujarat – 380001 बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad èथायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AOQPS3607F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथȸ ओर से /Appellant by : Mrs. Divya Rathod, A.R. Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/08/2025 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), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi dated 17.01.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. At the outset itself, it was noted that the appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 431 days. The assessee has filed application before me explaining the reason for delay. The assessee has stated in the application that he was engaged in the business of retail and wholesale trading of fruits under the Proprietorship firm Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1297/Ahd/2025 [Navratan Bhavarlal Singadiya vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 - 2 – named M/s. Navratan Fruit Centre and he is also Director in M/s. Flymore Pvt. Ltd. That he is 12th standard pass and does not have much knowledge about computer system or email system. That he regularly filed his return of income. That he was completely unaware of the passing of the Ld. CIT(A) order and it was only when he contacted a new Chartered Accountant for advance tax payment and the said professional, while verifying his portal, found out that there were outstanding demands on the assessee which accordingly revealed that the CIT(A) order had been passed against which there was outstanding demand visible. The assessee stated that when he was made aware of the said position, he contacted his earlier consultant who admitted to having missed out the notices issued to the assessee during appellate proceeding as also passing of the Ld. CIT(A) order. Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed affidavit of the assessee stating aforementioned facts before me. Affidavit of the earlier Consultant, Shri Bhavinkumar Vinodchandra Shah, was also filed admitting to the lapse on his part and not having passed emails of notices served on the assessee for prompt action. 3. The Ld. DR, however, objected the condonation of delay stating that it was substantial. 4. Having heard both the parties, I find that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the present appeal. The delay has been shown to be attributable to his earlier Consultant who admitted to having missed out the notices issued to the assessee during appellate proceeding as also informing the assessee of the passing of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order. The Ld.DR has been unable to point out any falsity in the explanation of the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1297/Ahd/2025 [Navratan Bhavarlal Singadiya vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 - 3 – 5. Courts have been unanimous in holding that the word ‘sufficient cause’ as per section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and that merely because there is some lapse of the litigant concerned, that alone is not enough to shut the door of justice to him. That as long as the explanation of the assessee does not smack of malafides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration and when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While holding so, the courts have considered that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late and by refusing the condonation of delay it can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold, defeating the cause of justice. That when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. It has also been noted that there is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence. A litigant doesn’t stand to benefit by resorting to delay. I make a reference in this regard to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, 1987 AIR 1353. 6. In view of the above therefore, noting that the assessee has adduced sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal before us, I consider it to be a fit case for condoning the delay in the interest of justice. The delay of 431 days in the filing of the present appeal is accordingly condoned. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1297/Ahd/2025 [Navratan Bhavarlal Singadiya vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 - 4 – 7. Proceeding to adjudicate the appeal before me, Ld.Counsel for the asesesee pointed out that for the reasons aforesaid, both the assessment order and CIT(A) order were passed ex parte. 8. Since I have found substance in the reason adduced by the assessee as above while condoning the delay in filing appeal before me, I hold that the assessee has justifiable reasons for not appearing before the Ld.CIT(A) and also the AO. 9. Considering the same therefore, since the assessee has remained unheard by the AO, I consider it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the AO to pass order afresh in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 10. 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 "