SAMIR VINODRAY MAKWANA,RAJKOT V. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), RAJOT, RAJKOT

ITA 28/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Samir Vinodray Makwana against an ex-parte order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), which arose from an assessment order under sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was initially barred by a delay of 46 days, which the Tribunal condoned after considering the assessee's reasons for the delay, including the unavailability of his son, who managed his tax affairs, and the inexperience of a new tax consultant with electronic communications. On the merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to present his case, violating the principles of natural justice, and thus decided to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312173 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL RANPURA; LD
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH “SMC”, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical Hearing) ITA No.28/RJT/2025 Asstt. Year: (2010-11) Shri Samir Vinodray Makwana Khodpara Main Road, Street Noo.D13, Jetpur, Dit. Rajkot-360 370 PAN : AIAPM 7196 H Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2)(3), Rajkot, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.AR राजèव कȧ ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, ld.Sr.DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख /Date of Hearing : 12/03/2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 29/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. ARJUNLAL SAINI AM; Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11, is directed against the order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) Addl/JCIT(A)-6, Delhi, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short), dated 18.12.2017. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal is barred by limitation of 46 days. The assessee moved an affidavit for condonation of delay requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee explained the sufficient reasons stating that assessee was not conversant with accessing e-mail etc. Besides, the tax consultant appointed by the assessee did not take care of the ITA No. 28/RJT/2025A.Y 10-11 Sh. Samir V. Makwana Page | 2 taxation matters of the assessee and the assessee`s son who used to handle the assessee`s taxation matters, has left to Singapore. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that ex- parte order passed by Ld.CIT(A) due to non-submission of relevant papers. The Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee filed an affidavit to explain sufficient cause and stated that such minor delay may be condoned. 3. However, Ld. Senior DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of assessee for condonation of delay and stated that delay should not be condoned. 4. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. The assessee explained the reasons for delay stating that his son who handled the assessee`s appeal has left to Singapore, therefore, assessee approached another Chartered Accountant to prepare Form No.36 and other papers and in this process such minor delay has occurred. Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. I, accordingly, condone the delay. 5. On merit, at the outset itself, 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, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the assessing officer may be granted to the assessee. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that there is no point to give second inning to the assessee and assessee`s appeal should be dismissed, as the assessee was negligent before both the lower authorities as he did not appear before both the lower authorities. 6. I have heard both the parties and note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act and the ITA No. 28/RJT/2025A.Y 10-11 Sh. Samir V. Makwana Page | 3 impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. I note that ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue in respect of the ground raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal, as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Hence, I am of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee, to plead his case before the Assessing Officer. I note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee. Needless to direct that before passing the order afresh, the Assessing Officer shall allow opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the evidence at the earliest possible of time before Assessing Officer as and when call for. In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/04/2025. Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) लेखा सदÖय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER राजकोट /Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 29/04/2025 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S ITA No. 28/RJT/2025A.Y 10-11 Sh. Samir V. Makwana Page | 4 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/आदेशसे , सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,राजकोट "