SHABBIR SAIFUDDIN MAKATI,JAMNAGAR V. THE ITO, WARD-3(1), JAMNAGAR

ITA 419/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shabbir Safuddini Makati, the appellant, contesting an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2014-15 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(6), Jamnagar. The appellant raised several grievances including the lack of a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and the erroneous application of law by the CIT(A) in upholding the assessment order. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was initially barred by limitation but accepted the reasons for delay due to the appellant's engagement in the medical treatment of his aged parents, considering it a reasonable and sufficient cause. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the grounds raised by the appellant and thus decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716426 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV; LD. .
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJEEV BUDDH; LD
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,राजकोट Ûयायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH: RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.419/RJT/2025 (Ǔनधा[रणवष[/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shabbir Safuddini Makati C-2/333, GIDC, Shankar Tekari, Udyog Nagar, Jamnagar-361004 बनाम /Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(6), Jamnagar, Aaykar Bhwan, Jamnagar-361 004 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACDPM8899E (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरतीकȧओरसे/Appellant by : Shri Sanjeev Buddh, Ld.A.R. राजèवकȧओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr. D.R. सुनवाईकȧतारȣख/Date of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणाकȧतारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 18/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)/Addl/JCIT(A)-8, Delhi (in short “Ld.CIT(A)”,dated 31.01.2025, which in turn arises out of an Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No.419/RJT/2025 A.Y.14-15 Shabbir S Makati assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 15.11.2016. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law by not giving reasonable opportunity of being herd to the appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law by passed order against assessee u/s 250 for failure to comply with the show cause notice even without considering the assessee point of view. 3. Assessee has fully cooperated with the assessing Officer for the completion of assessment and provided the complete details in short time, without any delay or default for hearing, default may be condoned and penalty to be deleted. 4. The Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing an order against the assessee on the grounds that sufficient opportunity of being heard was provided. However, appellant not aware of any communication from department under the unforeseen circumstances of AR. Therefore, the appellant respectfully requests that this order be set aside and the case be remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO) for reconsideration. Furthermore, the additions made by the AO are not justified, as the appellant possesses substantial evidences demonstrating that the income in question was neither concealed nor undisclosed. Specifically, the amount received from the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) is exempt under Section10(10D) of the Income Tax Act, and the proceeds from the sale of a residential property were appropriately offered for taxation as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 5. The assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is bad-in- law.” 3. This appeal filed by the assessee, before the Tribunal, is barred by limitation by 79 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) and 253(5) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel has explained the reasons for delay stating that assessee was badly engaged for medical treatment of his parents who were aged old. The Ld. Counsel stated that assessee was in mental stress due to ailment of his parents, therefore, the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No.419/RJT/2025 A.Y.14-15 Shabbir S Makati delay has occurred, which was neither wilful nor deliberate, but due to the circumstances beyond his control. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, requested that in the interest of justice, the delay may be condoned and appeal may be decided on merit. 4. On the other hand, the Learned Senior DR for the Revenue, opposed the prayer of the assessee, for condonation of delay, and stated that delay should not be condoned. 5. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. In the affidavit, it is submitted that assessee was engaged in medical treatment of his parents and as a result, the assessee could not file appeal before the Tribunal. We note that reasons given in the petition for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. Considering all these facts, we find that delay was not deliberate and intentional, but it was due to medical attention of assessee’s parents who were age old. However, Ld. Sr-DR has raised objection and stated that delay should not be condoned. 6. We note that the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, We are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. We, accordingly, condone the delay. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No.419/RJT/2025 A.Y.14-15 Shabbir S Makati 7. At the outset, on merit, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the advocate appointed by assessee did not co-operate in the proceedings before Assessing Officer, as well as in appellate proceedings before Ld.CIT(A), therefore, learned CIT(A) had passed the ex-perty order, as no any documents were furnished by the advocate appointed by the assessee before ld CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, submitted that now the assessee is ready with the documents and details and wants to furnish the details and documents before lower authorities. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel prayed before the Bench that one more opportunity should be given to assessee to plead his case before Assessing Officer. 8. The ld. Sr-DR of the Revenue has raised no objection, if the matter is remitted back to the file of lower authorities. 9. We have heard both the parties and gone through materials available on record. We 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. The Ld. AR of the assessee requested to set aside the order of CIT(A) and requested the Bench that matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and undertook the responsibility that all the details would be filed before Assessing Officer, if another opportunity is granted to the appellant. The Ld. Sr-DR has also no objection if the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer. In view of the above facts, we deem it proper to set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting adequate and fair opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is needless to say that assessee will be at liberty to adduce any evidences, as deemed relevant Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA No.419/RJT/2025 A.Y.14-15 Shabbir S Makati before the Assessing Officer at the time of de novo assessment proceedings, in consequence to this order and the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order, which is fair and judicious. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 10.In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 18/08/2025 in the Open Court. Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI) ÛयाǓयकसदèय/Judicial Member लेखासदèय/ Accountant Member राजकोट/Rajkot Ǒदनांक/ Date: 18/08/2025 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S आदेशकȧĤǓतͧलͪपअĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant  Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent  आयकरआयुÈत/ CIT  आयकरआयुÈत(अपील)/ The CIT(A)  ͪवभागीयĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकरअपीलȣयआͬधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  गाड[फाईल/ Guard File By order/आदेशसे, सहायकपंजीकार आयकरअपीलȣयअͬधकरण, राजकोट Printed from counselvise.com "