SHRI DAYABHAI KARSHANBHAI GAREJA, MANGROL, DISTRICT JUNAGADH V. THE ACIT CIRCLE1, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

ITA 415/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Bhimabhai Karshanbhai Gareja against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad, which was initially filed late by 567 days. The delay was attributed to the negligence of the assessee's accountant, Mukeshkumar J Rathod, who failed to file the appeal within the prescribed time despite advising the assessee to do so. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay convincing and allowed the appeal to be heard on merits, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over technicalities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775838 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; Time period of passing order
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं (Ǔनधा[रणवष[ आयकर (Ǔनधा[रणवष[ Appellant by Respondent by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement Per,Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad/ National Dayabhai Karshanbhai Garejja 128/G, Fulrama, Mangarol, Junagadh – 363620 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) Bhimabhai Karshanbhai Gareja 128/G, Fulrama, Mangarol, Junagadh – 363620 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,राजकोटɊायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 415/RJT/2025 Ǔनधा[रणवष[/Assessment Year: (2017-18) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 416/RJT/2025 Ǔनधा[रणवष[/Assessment Year: (2017-18) : Shri Fenil H. Maheta, Ld. AR : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. : 04/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12/09/2025 ORDER . Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad/ National Dayabhai Karshanbhai Garejja Vs. ACIT, Cir – 1, Junagadh - 362001 PAN/GIR No.: AWUPG2899R (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Bhimabhai Karshanbhai Gareja Vs. ACIT, Cir – 1, Junagadh - 362001 PAN/GIR No.: AWUPG2899R (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , Ld. Sr. DR The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad/ National Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 415 & 416/Rjt/2025 Dayabhai K. Gareja Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”]16.01.2019 & 25.09.2023 passed u/s. 144of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here relevant to the assessment Year 20 2. Since, the issue involved in these appeals are common and identical both these appeals are clubbed and heard together and are decided by the consolidated order for sake to convenience and brevity 3. The appeal filed by the assessee by limitation by 566 days. The assessee has moved a to condone of delay. The contents “1. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant herein has filed appeal. However, a delay of 567 days has occurred in filing the appeal before your application for the condonation of delay. 2. The period of limitation for filing the appeal under section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is sixty days of the date of service of the notice of demand. 3. In the present case order u/s days of the date of service of the order has expired on 24.11 2023. The present appeal is being filed on 13.06.2025 and therefore delay of 567 days has taken place. 4. It is submitted that Applicant b main source of income for the year under consideration 5. The accountant namely Mukeshkumar J Rathod having Aadhar no 835819275417 was used to advice the Applicant on accounting and taxation aspects since receipt of the order u/s 250 passed by CIT(A), copy of the order was handed over to the Accountant namely Mukeshkumar J Rathod and Accountant namely Mukeshkumar J Rathod has advised to the Applicant that Applicant is required to file an app the Hon'ble Tribunal within 60 days against such order. Further, he also told the Applicant that he will do all the necessary arrangements for filing of an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal and appeal to the Hon'ble ITAT will be filed within sp 6. The Accountant Mukeshkumar J Rathod thereafter has not done anything after receipt of the appellate order for A.Y.2017 elapsed on account of his misbelief that he had handed over the tasks to Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated [hereinafter referred to as 19 & 25.09.2023 arising in the matter of assessment order of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) ssessment Year 2017-18. the issue involved in these appeals are common and identical these appeals are clubbed and heard together and are decided by the for sake to convenience and brevity. The appeal filed by the assessee (ITA 416/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench of delay. The contents of condonation of delay, are as follows; 1. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant herein has filed appeal. However, a delay of 567 days has occurred in filing the appeal before your honour. Hence, this application for the condonation of delay. 2. The period of limitation for filing the appeal under section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is sixty days of the date of service of the notice of demand. 3. In the present case order u/s 250 of the Act has been served on 25.09.2023 and sixty days of the date of service of the order has expired on 24.11 2023. The present appeal is being filed on 13.06.2025 and therefore delay of 567 days has taken place. 4. It is submitted that Applicant being a farmer, having an agricultural income as the main source of income for the year under consideration 5. The accountant namely Mukeshkumar J Rathod having Aadhar no 835819275417 was used to advice the Applicant on accounting and taxation aspects since receipt of the order u/s 250 passed by CIT(A), copy of the order was handed over to the Accountant namely Mukeshkumar J Rathod and Accountant namely Mukeshkumar J Rathod has advised to the Applicant that Applicant is required to file an app the Hon'ble Tribunal within 60 days against such order. Further, he also told the Applicant that he will do all the necessary arrangements for filing of an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal and appeal to the Hon'ble ITAT will be filed within specified time. 6. The Accountant Mukeshkumar J Rathod thereafter has not done anything after receipt of the appellate order for A.Y.2017-18 despite time of more than 567 days had been elapsed on account of his misbelief that he had handed over the tasks to Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated [hereinafter referred to as arising in the matter of assessment order after referred to as “the Act”) the issue involved in these appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals are clubbed and heard together and are decided by the (ITA 416/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017-18) is barred petition requesting the Bench condonation of delay, are as follows; 1. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant herein has filed appeal. However, a honour. Hence, this 2. The period of limitation for filing the appeal under section 253(3) of the Income Tax 250 of the Act has been served on 25.09.2023 and sixty days of the date of service of the order has expired on 24.11 2023. The present appeal is being filed on 13.06.2025 and therefore delay of 567 days has taken place. eing a farmer, having an agricultural income as the 5. The accountant namely Mukeshkumar J Rathod having Aadhar no 835819275417 was used to advice the Applicant on accounting and taxation aspects since many years. On receipt of the order u/s 250 passed by CIT(A), copy of the order was handed over to the Accountant namely Mukeshkumar J Rathod and Accountant namely Mukeshkumar J Rathod has advised to the Applicant that Applicant is required to file an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal within 60 days against such order. Further, he also told the Applicant that he will do all the necessary arrangements for filing of an appeal before the ecified time. 6. The Accountant Mukeshkumar J Rathod thereafter has not done anything after receipt 18 despite time of more than 567 days had been elapsed on account of his misbelief that he had handed over the tasks to tax consultant Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 415 & 416/Rjt/2025 Dayabhai K. Gareja where as in fact no said task relating to me was handed over by him to any tax consultant. 7. Thereafter in June, 2025 the Accountant Mukeshkumar J Rathod has realised his mistake and has left the assignment by stating that he was not fit pe handle and/or assign the assessment, penalty Applicant to contact other Chartered accountant or lawyer who can handle said proceedings 8. The Applicant thereafter has immediately contacted another con the income tax proceedings. The new consultant in June, 2025, after checking the proceedings history of the Applicant, has advised to file the Appeal against the order u/s 250 of the Act for AY 2017 9. The Applicant therefore submi the delay has occurred in filing the appeal for the Α.Υ.2017 10. The Applicant submits that delay in filing the appeals is not deliberate or malafide. It is further submitted that delay has not of the Applicant. 11. The Applicant submits that delay in filing the appeals is bonafide and it is settled position of law that where the delay was bonafide and there is sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal, the delay must be condoned by the appellate authority specially when it is necessary for rendering the substantial justice to the assessee. 12. The Applicant therefore submits that Applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the limitation period and it has a good case on merits and is hopeful to succeed. Hence, there is an appropriate and sufficient reason to condone the delay. 13.From the above facts, it is most respectfully submitted that when substantial justi and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non appeal may kindly be decided on merits rather than rejecting the same on the ground of delay and latches as the cause of substantial justice shall prevail over the technical considerations. 14. The Applicant, therefore, prays that Hon'ble Tribunal be a) allow the present application of condonation of delay. b) condone the delay of 567 days occurred in filing the Present Appeal for A.Y.2017 and to extend the time for filing the same inclusive and up to the date of filing the present Appeal.” where as in fact no said task relating to me was handed over by him to any tax 7. Thereafter in June, 2025 the Accountant Mukeshkumar J Rathod has realised his mistake and has left the assignment by stating that he was not fit person to person to handle and/or assign the assessment, penalty appellate proceedings and advised the Applicant to contact other Chartered accountant or lawyer who can handle said 8. The Applicant thereafter has immediately contacted another consultant for handling the income tax proceedings. The new consultant in June, 2025, after checking the proceedings history of the Applicant, has advised to file the Appeal against the order u/s 250 of the Act for AY 2017-18. 9. The Applicant therefore submits that due to the inadvertent mistake of the accountant, the delay has occurred in filing the appeal for the Α.Υ.2017-18. 10. The Applicant submits that delay in filing the appeals is not deliberate or malafide. It is further submitted that delay has not occurred due to negligence or inaction on the part 11. The Applicant submits that delay in filing the appeals is bonafide and it is settled position of law that where the delay was bonafide and there is sufficient cause for delay g appeal, the delay must be condoned by the appellate authority specially when it is necessary for rendering the substantial justice to the assessee. 12. The Applicant therefore submits that Applicant was prevented by sufficient cause ppeal within the limitation period and it has a good case on merits and is hopeful to succeed. Hence, there is an appropriate and sufficient reason to From the above facts, it is most respectfully submitted that when substantial justi and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay. It is further submitted that appeal may kindly be decided on merits rather than rejecting the same on the ground of delay and latches as the cause of substantial justice shall prevail over the technical 4. The Applicant, therefore, prays that Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to: a) allow the present application of condonation of delay. b) condone the delay of 567 days occurred in filing the Present Appeal for A.Y.2017 and to extend the time for filing the same inclusive and up to the date of filing the present where as in fact no said task relating to me was handed over by him to any tax 7. Thereafter in June, 2025 the Accountant Mukeshkumar J Rathod has realised his rson to person to ppellate proceedings and advised the Applicant to contact other Chartered accountant or lawyer who can handle said sultant for handling the income tax proceedings. The new consultant in June, 2025, after checking the proceedings history of the Applicant, has advised to file the Appeal against the order u/s ts that due to the inadvertent mistake of the accountant, 10. The Applicant submits that delay in filing the appeals is not deliberate or malafide. It occurred due to negligence or inaction on the part 11. The Applicant submits that delay in filing the appeals is bonafide and it is settled position of law that where the delay was bonafide and there is sufficient cause for delay g appeal, the delay must be condoned by the appellate authority specially when it 12. The Applicant therefore submits that Applicant was prevented by sufficient cause ppeal within the limitation period and it has a good case on merits and is hopeful to succeed. Hence, there is an appropriate and sufficient reason to From the above facts, it is most respectfully submitted that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in deliberate delay. It is further submitted that the appeal may kindly be decided on merits rather than rejecting the same on the ground of delay and latches as the cause of substantial justice shall prevail over the technical b) condone the delay of 567 days occurred in filing the Present Appeal for A.Y.2017-18 and to extend the time for filing the same inclusive and up to the date of filing the present Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 415 & 416/Rjt/2025 Dayabhai K. Gareja 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submit petition for condonation of delay, assessee, the delay of 566 days may be condoned to the file of the assessing officer. 5. The Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay of 566 the sufficient cause to condone the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed. 6. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and not delay explained in the petition for condonation of delay are, convincing and assessee has explained the sufficient cause to condone the delay. The mistake of the accountant/advocate of the assessee is a sufficient cause to condone the dela The assessee should not be penalized because of the mistake committed by his accountant/advocate. Hence, I condone the delay and admit the appeal of assessee for hearing. 7. The appeal filed by the assessee (ITA 415/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017 by limitation by 79 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condonation of delay. The contents follows; “1. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant herein has filed appeal. However, delay of 88 days has occurred in filing the appeal before this Hon'ble ITAT. Hence, this application for the condonation of delay. 2. The period of limitation for filing the appeal under section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is sixty days of the 3. In the present case order u/s 250 of the Act has been served on 16.01.2025 and sixty days of the date of service of the order has expired on 18.03.2025. The present appeal is being filed on 13.06.2025 and therefo Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that based on the contents condonation of delay, as there was mistake of the advocate of the days may be condoned and matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer. Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for 566 days and stated that the assessee has failed to one delay, therefore, delay should not be condoned, and the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and note that reasons of delay explained in the petition for condonation of delay are, convincing and the sufficient cause to condone the delay. The mistake of the accountant/advocate of the assessee is a sufficient cause to condone the dela The assessee should not be penalized because of the mistake committed by his Hence, I condone the delay and admit the appeal of assessee The appeal filed by the assessee (ITA 415/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017 limitation by 79 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench ndonation of delay. The contents of the petition condonation of delay, are as 1. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant herein has filed appeal. However, delay of 88 days has occurred in filing the appeal before this Hon'ble ITAT. Hence, this application for the condonation of delay. 2. The period of limitation for filing the appeal under section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is sixty days of the date of service of the notice of demand. 3. In the present case order u/s 250 of the Act has been served on 16.01.2025 and sixty days of the date of service of the order has expired on 18.03.2025. The present appeal is being filed on 13.06.2025 and therefore delay of 88 days has taken place. ted that based on the contents of the as there was mistake of the advocate of the and matter may be restored back Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for days and stated that the assessee has failed to explain delay, therefore, delay should not be condoned, and that reasons of delay explained in the petition for condonation of delay are, convincing and the sufficient cause to condone the delay. The mistake of the accountant/advocate of the assessee is a sufficient cause to condone the delay. The assessee should not be penalized because of the mistake committed by his Hence, I condone the delay and admit the appeal of assessee The appeal filed by the assessee (ITA 415/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017-18) is barred limitation by 79 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench condonation of delay, are as 1. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant herein has filed appeal. However, a delay of 88 days has occurred in filing the appeal before this Hon'ble ITAT. Hence, this 2. The period of limitation for filing the appeal under section 253(3) of the Income Tax 3. In the present case order u/s 250 of the Act has been served on 16.01.2025 and sixty days of the date of service of the order has expired on 18.03.2025. The present appeal is re delay of 88 days has taken place. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 415 & 416/Rjt/2025 Dayabhai K. Gareja 4. It is submitted that Applicant being a farmer, having an agricultural income as the main source of income for the year under consideration. 5. The accountant namely Mukeshkumar J Rathod having Aadhar no 835819275417 used to advice the Applicant on accounting and taxation aspects since many years. On receipt of the order u/s 250 passed by CIT(A), copy of the order was handed over to the Accountant namely Mukeshkumar J Rathod and Accountant namely Mukeshkumar J Rathod has advised to the Applicant that Applicant is required to file an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal within 60 days against such order. Further, he also told the Applicant that he will do all the necessary arrangements for filing of an appeal before th Hon'ble Tribunal and appeal to the Hon'ble ITAT will be filed within specified time. 6. The Accountant Mukeshkumar J Rathod thereafter has not done anything after receipt of the appellate order for A.Y.2017 elapsed on account of his misbelief that he had handed over the tasks to tax consultant where as in fact no said task relating to me was handed over by him to any tax consultant. 7. Thereafter in June, 2025 the Accountant Mukeshkumar J Rathod has realised h mistake and has left the assignment by stating that he was not fit person to person to handle and/or assign the assessment, penalty Applicant to contact other chartered accountant or lawyer who can handle said proceedings 8. The Applicant thereafter has immediately contacted another consultant for handling the income tax proceedings. The new consultant in June, 2025, after checking the proceedings history of the Applicant, has advised to file the Appeal against the 250 of the Act for AY 2017 9. The Applicant therefore submits that due to the inadvertent mistake of the accountant, the delay has occurred in filing the appeal for the Α.Υ.2017 10. The Applicant submits that delay in filing the appeals i is further submitted that delay has not occurred due to negligence or inaction on the part of the Applicant. 11. The Applicant submits that delay in filing the appeals is bonafide and it is settled position of law that wher in filing appeal, the delay must be condoned by the appellate authority specially when it is necessary for rendering the substantial justice to the assessee. 12. The Applicant therefore submi from presenting the appeal within the limitation period and it has a good case on merits and is hopeful to succeed. Hence, there is an appropriate and sufficient reason to condone the delay. 13. From the above facts, it is most respectfully submitted that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial 4. It is submitted that Applicant being a farmer, having an agricultural income as the main source of income for the year under consideration. 5. The accountant namely Mukeshkumar J Rathod having Aadhar no 835819275417 used to advice the Applicant on accounting and taxation aspects since many years. On receipt of the order u/s 250 passed by CIT(A), copy of the order was handed over to the Accountant namely Mukeshkumar J Rathod and Accountant namely Mukeshkumar J od has advised to the Applicant that Applicant is required to file an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal within 60 days against such order. Further, he also told the Applicant that he will do all the necessary arrangements for filing of an appeal before th Hon'ble Tribunal and appeal to the Hon'ble ITAT will be filed within specified time. 6. The Accountant Mukeshkumar J Rathod thereafter has not done anything after receipt of the appellate order for A.Y.2017-18 despite time of more than 88 days had been lapsed on account of his misbelief that he had handed over the tasks to tax consultant where as in fact no said task relating to me was handed over by him to any tax 7. Thereafter in June, 2025 the Accountant Mukeshkumar J Rathod has realised h mistake and has left the assignment by stating that he was not fit person to person to handle and/or assign the assessment, penalty, appeallate proceedings and advised the Applicant to contact other chartered accountant or lawyer who can handle said 8. The Applicant thereafter has immediately contacted another consultant for handling the income tax proceedings. The new consultant in June, 2025, after checking the proceedings history of the Applicant, has advised to file the Appeal against the 250 of the Act for AY 2017-18 9. The Applicant therefore submits that due to the inadvertent mistake of the accountant, the delay has occurred in filing the appeal for the Α.Υ.2017-18. 10. The Applicant submits that delay in filing the appeals is not deliberate or malafide. It is further submitted that delay has not occurred due to negligence or inaction on the part 11. The Applicant submits that delay in filing the appeals is bonafide and it is settled position of law that where the delay was bonafide and there is sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal, the delay must be condoned by the appellate authority specially when it is necessary for rendering the substantial justice to the assessee. 12. The Applicant therefore submits that Applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the limitation period and it has a good case on merits and is hopeful to succeed. Hence, there is an appropriate and sufficient reason to above facts, it is most respectfully submitted that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial 4. It is submitted that Applicant being a farmer, having an agricultural income as the 5. The accountant namely Mukeshkumar J Rathod having Aadhar no 835819275417 was used to advice the Applicant on accounting and taxation aspects since many years. On receipt of the order u/s 250 passed by CIT(A), copy of the order was handed over to the Accountant namely Mukeshkumar J Rathod and Accountant namely Mukeshkumar J od has advised to the Applicant that Applicant is required to file an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal within 60 days against such order. Further, he also told the Applicant that he will do all the necessary arrangements for filing of an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal and appeal to the Hon'ble ITAT will be filed within specified time. 6. The Accountant Mukeshkumar J Rathod thereafter has not done anything after receipt 18 despite time of more than 88 days had been lapsed on account of his misbelief that he had handed over the tasks to tax consultant where as in fact no said task relating to me was handed over by him to any tax 7. Thereafter in June, 2025 the Accountant Mukeshkumar J Rathod has realised his mistake and has left the assignment by stating that he was not fit person to person to appeallate proceedings and advised the Applicant to contact other chartered accountant or lawyer who can handle said 8. The Applicant thereafter has immediately contacted another consultant for handling the income tax proceedings. The new consultant in June, 2025, after checking the proceedings history of the Applicant, has advised to file the Appeal against the order u/s 9. The Applicant therefore submits that due to the inadvertent mistake of the accountant, s not deliberate or malafide. It is further submitted that delay has not occurred due to negligence or inaction on the part 11. The Applicant submits that delay in filing the appeals is bonafide and it is settled e the delay was bonafide and there is sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal, the delay must be condoned by the appellate authority specially when it ts that Applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the limitation period and it has a good case on merits and is hopeful to succeed. Hence, there is an appropriate and sufficient reason to above facts, it is most respectfully submitted that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 415 & 416/Rjt/2025 Dayabhai K. Gareja justice deserves to be preferred, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non appeal may kindly be decided on merits rather than rejecting the same on the ground of delay and latches as the cause of substantial justice shall prevail over the technical considerations. 14. The Applicant, therefore, prays that Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to: a) allow the present application of condonation of delay. b) condone the delay of 88 days occurred in filing the Present Appeal for A.Y.2017 and to extend the time for Appeal.” 8. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that based on the of delay explained in the petition for condonation of delay, the delay of may be condoned and matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer. 9. The Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay of 79 the sufficient cause to condone delay, therefore, delay should not be condone, and the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed. 10. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue reason explained by the assessee are convincing in nature, therefore, I condone the delay in filing the appeal of the assessee, and admit the appeal for hearing. 11. On merit, at the outset, Ld. Counsel assessee is a farmer and he neither appeared before the assessing officer nor before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore both the lower authorities have passed ex contended that now the assessee has ready justice deserves to be preferred, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in e being done because of non-deliberate delay. It is further submitted that the appeal may kindly be decided on merits rather than rejecting the same on the ground of delay and latches as the cause of substantial justice shall prevail over the technical 14. The Applicant, therefore, prays that Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to: a) allow the present application of condonation of delay. b) condone the delay of 88 days occurred in filing the Present Appeal for A.Y.2017 and to extend the time for filing the same inclusive and up to the date of filing the present . At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that based on the petition for condonation of delay, the delay of d and matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for days and stated that the assessee has failed to condone delay, therefore, delay should not be condone, and the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue, and I note that the reason explained by the assessee in the above petition for condonat in nature, therefore, I condone the delay in filing the appeal of the assessee, and admit the appeal for hearing. t the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that depends on his advocate. The advocate of the assessee neither appeared before the assessing officer nor before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore both the lower authorities have passed ex-parte order. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that now the assessee has ready to submit all the required details and justice deserves to be preferred, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in deliberate delay. It is further submitted that the appeal may kindly be decided on merits rather than rejecting the same on the ground of delay and latches as the cause of substantial justice shall prevail over the technical b) condone the delay of 88 days occurred in filing the Present Appeal for A.Y.2017-18 filing the same inclusive and up to the date of filing the present . At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that based on the reasons petition for condonation of delay, the delay of 79 days d and matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for days and stated that the assessee has failed to explain condone delay, therefore, delay should not be condone, and , and I note that the in the above petition for condonation of delay, in nature, therefore, I condone the delay in filing the appeal of the contended that since the advocate of the assessee neither appeared before the assessing officer nor before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore parte order. Therefore, Ld. Counsel to submit all the required details and Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 415 & 416/Rjt/2025 Dayabhai K. Gareja documents and some additional evidences to prove his claim before the Lower Authorities, therefore, one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the assessing officer. 12. The ld. DR for the Revenue back to the file of the assessing officer. 13.I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non- comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 14. I have heard both the parties and carefully gon forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available b hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, the matter back to the file of order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. am of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue requires to be set aside and the issue needs to be looked into afresh by the AO in the light of documents and some additional evidences to prove his claim before the Lower Authorities, therefore, one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the assessing officer. or the Revenue did not raise any objection if the matter remitted back to the file of the assessing officer. note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is -speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. Considering the above facts, that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available b hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. 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, delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. For the reasons given above, of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue requires to be set aside and the issue needs to be looked into afresh by the AO in the light of documents and some additional evidences to prove his claim before the Lower Authorities, therefore, one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to did not raise any objection if the matter remitted note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is do not wish to make any e through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld bove facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him t is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore adjudication and pass a speaking assessee, who in For the reasons given above, I of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue requires to be set aside and the issue needs to be looked into afresh by the AO in the light of the Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No. 415 & 416/Rjt/2025 Dayabhai K. Gareja observations as set out above. opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in furt 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 Ld. AO statistical purposes, both these 15. In the result, both these the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes Order is pronounced in the open court on राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 12/09/2025 Copy of the order forwarded to : The assessee The Respondent CIT The CIT(A) DR, ITAT, RAJKOT Guard File observations as set out above. I hold and direct accordingly. The AO will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to substantiate its case. deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter Ld. AO to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For both these appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed. se appeals (ITA 415 & 416/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017 allowed for statistical purposes Order is pronounced in the open court on 12/09/2025 Sd/- (DR. A. L. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) Copy of the order forwarded to : By order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot hold and direct accordingly. The AO will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee s case. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For treated as allowed. (ITA 415 & 416/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017-18) of SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot Printed from counselvise.com "