RAGHAV DANGAYACH,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD 4(1) JPR, JAIPUR

MA 69/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application (MA No. 69/JPR/2025) filed by Raghav Dangayach against the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Jaipur, concerning the assessment year 2021-22. The application was an attempt to rectify an earlier Tribunal order dated 26.09.2025, which dismissed the appellant's appeal due to a delay of 273 days in filing. The appellant argued that the delay was caused by his father's involvement in multiple court cases, which was mistakenly attributed to him in the Tribunal's earlier order. The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and clarified that the mention of the appellant's father's legal troubles was correct and did not affect the decision regarding the delay in filing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 784719 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Pathapai Subba Reddy (died) by L.Rs. & Ors vs. The special Deputy Collector (LR)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GORAV AVASTHI
• Assessee Lawyers: S. B. NATANI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Period of limitation

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM MA No. 69/JPR/2025 (Arsing out of ITANo. 993/JPR/2025) fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2021-22 Raghav Dangayach A-34A, Ram Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: ALLPD6247J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri S.B. Natani, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 10/11/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 10/11/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER This order is dispose of above captioned Miscellaneous Application filed by the appellant-applicant, u/s 254 of the Income Tax Act, and in relation to the order dated 26.09.2025, passed by this Appellate Tribunal, in ITA No. 993/JPR/2025. 2. Arguments heard. File perused. Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No. 69/JPR/2025 Raghav Dangayach, Jaipur. 3. ITA No. 993/JPR/2025 was presented by the assessee-appellant before this Appellate Tribunal on 30.06.2025 challenging the order dated 24.07.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A), Mumbai, relating to the assessment year 2021-22. Along with the appeal, the assessee filed an appeal seeking condonation of delay of 273 days. 4. Arguments were advanced by both sides on the issue of condonation of delay in filing of above said appeal. Vide order dated 26.09.2025, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed being barred by limitation. 5. Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that actually father of the assessee was involved in several Court cases with his partner Shri Naval Kishore, and as such, the assessee could not file an appeal before this Appellate Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation, but, in para 6 of the order dated 26.09.2025, passed by this Appellate Tribunal, it has been wrongly mentioned that it is the assessee who was involved in several Court cases, and as such, the order deserves to be rectified. 6. Para 6 of the order passed by this Appellate Tribunal refers only to the submission put forth by Learned AR for the applicant. Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No. 69/JPR/2025 Raghav Dangayach, Jaipur. We did not record any finding in para 6 that it was the assessee who was involved in several Court cases. We dealt with the aspect of litigation between the father of the assessee and his partner, in para 12 of our order. It was clearly mentioned that as regards the ground that father of the assessee was facing court cases on complaint and FIRs got registered by his partner, copy of bail order dated 12.03.2025 revealed that father of the assessee was allowed bail , by the Hon’ble High Court in case FIR No. 144/2023. This goes to show that we were well aware of actual claim of the appellant that it is his father who was facing court cases, on complaints and FIRs got registered by his partner. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that we were under wrong impression that the assessee himself was involved in several cases or that any such impression led in improper appreciation of any fact on the issue of condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 7. Another submission put forth by Ld. AR for the applicant is that in para 10 of the order dated 29.06.2025, it is mentioned that the assessee had failed to file response to four notices issued by Learned CIT(A) during period from 28.08.2023 to 08.07.2024, and that from the said conduct of the assessee, it could not be said that the assessee was not at all Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA No. 69/JPR/2025 Raghav Dangayach, Jaipur. interested in even pursuing the appeal filed before Learned CIT(A). Ld. AR has submitted that since these observations led to the dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay and also to the dismissal of appeal being barred by limitation, the order dated 26.09.2025 deserves to be rectified. 8. Notably, para 10 contains only the submission put forth by Ld. DR for the department regarding the failure of the assessee to respond to the four notices issued by the office of Learned CIT(A) and also to his conduct. The contents of para 10 are not the observation made by this Appellate Tribunal while passing the order. On the other hand, as rightly pointed out by Ld. DR for the department, in para 14 of the order dated 26.09.2025 we relied on decision by Hon’ble Apex Court in Pathapai Subba Reddy (died) by L.Rs. & Ors vs. The special Deputy Collector (LR), Special leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018, and while applying the said decision to the matter before us, we found that the applicant was not at all diligent in pursuing the matter relating to Income Tax, and further that he did not take any interest in contacting counsel or authorized representative even for the purpose of filing of appeal within prescribed period of limitation. So, even this contention raised by Ld. AR for the applicant is without any basis. Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA No. 69/JPR/2025 Raghav Dangayach, Jaipur. 9. No other argument has been put forth by Ld. AR for the applicant on this miscellaneous application. Result 10. In view of the above discussion, this Miscellaneous Application, being without any merit, is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Records be sent back. Order pronounced in the open court on 10/11/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 10/11/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Raghav Dangayach, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-4(1), Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File MA No. 69/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "