SHRI RAJNIKANT MOHANBHAI SANTOKI,AT KHAGESHREE, TALUKA KUTIYANA, DIST. PORBANADAR V. THE ITO WARD-2 (4), PORBANADAR

ITA 579/RJT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Rajnikant Mohanbhai Santoki, the appellant, who contested an order passed under sections 144, 147, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appellant faced a delay in filing an appeal with the CIT(A), which was initially not condoned. The appellant argued that the delay was due to his lack of understanding of legal procedures and reliance on a consultant who failed to respond to notices from the income tax department. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay convincing and condoned it, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26341 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; 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 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.579/RJT/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajnikant Mohanbhai Santoki, At-Khageshree, Taluka-Kutiyana, Dist-Porbandar, Khageshree-363250 (Gujarat) Vs. The I.T.O., Ward 2(4), Porbandar. èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: DRQPS 5255 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 15/10/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC”], dated 12/07/2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO”) u/s 144 r.w.s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 27/04/2023. 2. None appeared on behalf of assessee but on perusal of record, I note that there was a delay of 111 days in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) had not condoned the delay in filing appeal. I, ITA 579/Rjt/2024 Rajnikant Mohanbhai Santoki Vs ITO Page | 2 note that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee has submitted the reasons for condonation of delay, which are reproduced below: “The Appellant has studied till Matriculation i.e. up to Secondary School and did not understand the law procedures. The Appellant was unaware about the income tax law and therefore, he was solely dependent on his consultant for replies and other compliances. The Appellant comes from town Khageshree where population is less than 10,000 and literacy ratio is meager and people are not about law. Appellant received some notices from income tax department physically and appellant transfer those notices to his consultant for submission of required documents against notice in time and appellant made blind trust on consultant for all those notices received to him for income tax Proceedings. But consultant failed to replay all those notices due to heavy work loan and because of his negligence appellant received order of income tax department u/s 144 then also consultant advise him to wait for some time for the solution and appellant as because of unaware about all procedure and proceeding wait for consultant reply and advice. Now appellant got Bank Attachment Message from bank and the Appellant was shocked and stunned with the demand/attachment and immediately contact his consultant regarding this message and transfer his all document from consultant to other for ungently making an appeal against order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. However, in spite of having ‘sufficient cause’, the learned CIT (A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4. I have heard Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue. The ld DR has raised objection about condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has casual approach, before the ld. CIT(A), and has failed to substantiate his case before him. The assessee not deserve any leniency at this stage. Hence, the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 5. I have heard the submission of Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue and have also gone through the reasons given by the assessee during the appellate proceedings for condonation of delay. I find that the ITA 579/Rjt/2024 Rajnikant Mohanbhai Santoki Vs ITO Page | 3 assessee was unaware about the income tax law and he was solely dependent on his consultant for replies and other compliances. I find that the assessee fairly admitted that assessee received some notices from income tax department, physically and transferred those notices to his consultant for submission of required documents against notice, in time but consultant failed to replay all those notices. The reasons given by the assessee are found to be convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the condonation of delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, I condone the delay of 111 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 6. Since I have condoned the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and noted that the ld. CIT(A) did not pass the order as per mandate of provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act i.e. there is no adjudication by the ld. CIT(A) on merit, as per material available on record, hence, I am of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to plead his case before the Ld. CIT(A). 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, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interests of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) 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. 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 Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future and not to take any adjournment without any valid reason. The assessee is also directed to submit all the ITA 579/Rjt/2024 Rajnikant Mohanbhai Santoki Vs ITO Page | 4 documents, evidences and replies as soon as possible without any further delay. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 15/10/2024 in the open court. Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot *Ranjan Ǒदनांक/ Date: 15/10/2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot "