RASHILABEN DHIRAJLAL VORA,SURAT V. ITO, WARD 3(2)(1), SURAT

ITA 883/SRT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rashilaben Dhirajlal Vora, the appellant, contesting the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2011-2012. The primary contention was the non-condonation of a 1954-day delay in filing an appeal, which the appellant argued was not a real delay due to the transition from physical to electronic filing mandated by a CBDT notification. The Tribunal considered the procedural changes and the principles of natural justice, deciding to remand the case for a fresh evaluation of the delay and subsequent merits of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 780324 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J.K. CHANDNANI
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Unexplained cash credit; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; Right to appeal
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “SMC” SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 883/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Rashilaben Dhirajlal Vora, 102 Shankheshwar Apartment, Varachha Road, S.O. Bhada, Surat-395006. Vs. ITO Ward-3(2)(3), Current Jurisdiction ITO Ward 3(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001. PAN NO. AALPV 1275 B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rasesh Shah, CA Revenue by : Mr. J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 07/10/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011-2012, raising following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal before learned CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 883/SRT/2025 2 Rashilaben Dhirajjal Vora 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without passing speaking order. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in reopening assessment u/s. 147 by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 10,76,447/- on account of alleged unexplained cash credit on substantive basis. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 4,08,482/- on account of alleged unexplained cash credits on protective basis. 2. At the very threshold, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not admitted the appeal denying condonation of alleged delay of 1954 days in filing before him. I t was submitted there was no delay in filing the appeal before him. The explanation tendered was that the assessee had initially filed the appeal in physical form, as was the prevailing procedure at that time. However, pursuant to the change in procedural law brought about by the CBDT’s notification mandating e-filing of appeals (vide CBDT Circular No. 20/2016 dated 26.05.2016, read with Rule 45 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, as amended), the assessee subsequently filed the appeal again in the electronic format. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that there was no real delay in the institution of the appeal and that the time taken in transition from physical filing to e-filing ought to be Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 883/SRT/2025 3 Rashilaben Dhirajjal Vora treated as a procedural delay arising out of bona fide belief and administrative evolution of the appellate procedure. 2.1 The assessee placed on record a Paper Book comprising pages 1 to 52 and 53 to 70, and specifically drew our attention to page 53, which, according to the learned Counsel, evidences the filing of the appeal in physical mode on 03.12.2018. It was submitted that the assessment order was passed on 31.10.2018, served upon the assessee on 03.11.2018, and therefore, the appeal filed on 03.12.2018 was well within the statutory period of limitation prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act. 2.2 The learned Departmental Representative, however, invited our attention to the findings of the learned CIT(A) recorded in paragraph 2 on page 20 of the impugned order, wherein it has been categorically observed that no acknowledgement or proof of physical filing of appeal dated 30.11.2018 or 03.12.2018 was produced before him. The document now relied upon by the assessee and forming part of page 53 of the Paper Book is, therefore, an additional piece of evidence sought to be introduced for the first time before this Tribunal. 2.3 The learned Counsel for the assessee, in all fairness, conceded that such evidence was indeed not furnished before the learned CIT(A) and requested that the said document be treated as additional evidence in terms of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. He submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for verification of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 883/SRT/2025 4 Rashilaben Dhirajjal Vora the factual position regarding the filing of the physical appeal and for adjudicating the issue of condonation of delay in the light of the additional material and the CBDT’s procedural framework. 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, examined the record, and duly appreciated the peculiar circumstances attending the case. It is an admitted position that the evidence in support of the filing of the physical appeal was not before the first appellate authority. The document now sought to be relied upon, therefore, constitutes additional evidence within the meaning of Rule 29 (supra). In our opinion where substantial justice so demands, procedural technicalities should not come in the way of fair adjudication. 3.1 Further, the CBDT itself, through Circular No. 20/2016 (supra), recognized the transition from manual to electronic filing as an administrative reform, not intended to deprive any litigant of the right of appeal on account of technical lapses or procedural misunderstandings during the transitional phase. In keeping with this benevolent intent, such procedural confusion or bona fide omission ought not to result in denial of justice. 3.2 In view of the above, and considering the principles of natural justice as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC), where it was held that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities, we are of the considered Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 883/SRT/2025 5 Rashilaben Dhirajjal Vora opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) shall verify the factual correctness of the assessee’s claim regarding the filing of the physical appeal and adjudicate the issue of condonation of delay afresh in light of such verification and applicable law. 3.3 Should the learned CIT(A) be satisfied with the assessee’s explanation and condone the delay, he shall proceed to decide the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3.4 In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes, and the remaining grounds, being consequential and academic at this stage, are not adjudicated upon. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07/10/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat; Dated: 07/10/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. (on Tour) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 883/SRT/2025 6 Rashilaben Dhirajjal Vora BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Surat Printed from counselvise.com "