NIRANJANBHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL,VADODARA V. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

ITA 1394/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Niranjanbhai Shankarbhai Patel against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which dismissed the assessee's appeal as non-maintainable due to a delay of 23 days in filing. The primary contention was the incorrect explanation provided by the assessee for the delay, which pertained to a different section of the Income Tax Act than the one under appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to rectify this mistake and thus restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778168 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NITIN KULKARNI
• Assessee Lawyers: PAMIL H SHAH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1394/Ahd/2025 (िनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Niranjanbhai Shankarbhai Patel Sevasi Ambaji Khadki, Vadodara, Gujarat – 391101 बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara Öथायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : BPAPP4191R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथȸ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Pamil H Shah, AR Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01/10/2025 Date of Pronouncement 08/10/2025 (आदेश)/ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM: 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 02.06.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019-20. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The ld CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the ground of delay and bad in law and therefore requires to be cancelled. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1394/Ahd/2025 [Niranjanbhai Shankarbhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2019-20 - 2 – 2. The ld CIT(A) has erred confirming penalty U/s 271D of the Act for Rs.13,44,750/- without looking in to the facts of the case of the appellant. It is submitted that penalty be deleted. 3. The ld CIT(A) appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise.” 3. At the outset itself, it was stated that the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) as non-maintainable by not condoning the delay of 23 days in the filing of the appeal. We have noted from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that he had considered the assessee’s explanation for the delay in the filing of the present appeal and had found the same to be incorrect noting that the assessee had explained the delay in filing the appeal against the order passed u/s.147 of the Act, while the order appealed against was passed u/s.271D of the Act. He had also noted that the assessee’s explanation of being hospitalized when the order u/s.147 of the Act was passed did not apply to the order passed u/s.271D of the Act, since, it was passed much later than the order passed u/s.147 of the Act. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that it was an inadvertent mistake on his part while explaining the delay before the Ld. CIT(A). He contended that the assessee has reasonable cause for the delay and in any case, the delay was too small. He further pointed out that while noting the assessee’s reasons to be incorrect, the Ld.CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity to the assessee to rectify or clarify its mistake. He further pleaded that the assessee has been levied a penalty of Rs.13,44,750/- u/s.271D of the Act in the present case and if not heard the assessee would Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1394/Ahd/2025 [Niranjanbhai Shankarbhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2019-20 - 3 – be greatly prejudiced against. He pleaded restoration of the appeal to the Ld.CIT(A), so as to explain the reasons for the delay and convince the Ld.CIT(A) to entertain the appeal. 5. We are in agreement with the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the delay in the present case was only of 23 days and though admittedly the assessee had furnished a wrong explanation for the delay, yet before dismissing the asessee’s appeal as non- maintainable, the Ld. CIT(A) did not give any opportunity to the assessee to clarify its stand. In the interest of justice therefore, we consider it fit to restore the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) to give the assessee due opportunity to explain the delay and thereafter if considered fit to condone the same and decide the appeal on merits. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced on 08/10/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 08/10/2025 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 "