SHRI RAMNIKBHAI JASARAJBHAI PATEL,AT. DHRANGADHRA, DIST. SURENDRANAGAR V. THE ITO WARD-3, SURENDRANAGAR

MA 28/RJT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ramnikbhai Jasrajbhai Patel, the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application concerning the dismissal of his appeal due to a delay of 409 days in filing. The Tribunal had previously dismissed his appeal without considering the merits, focusing solely on the procedural delay. The appellant argued that the delay was due to sufficient cause and requested the Tribunal to condone the delay and hear the case on its merits. The Departmental Representative did not object to recalling the order. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to revisit the case, acknowledging the need to correct the oversight regarding the condonation of delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 771925 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: RUPESH SHAH; LD
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

" आयकरअपीलȣयअͬधकरण,राजकोटÛयायपीठ,राजकोट IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Miscellaneous Application No. 28/RJT/2024 (arising out of I.T.A No. 244/RJT/2023) Ǔनधा[रणवष[/Assessment Year: 2013-14 RamnikbhaiJasrajbhai Patel Narshipara, Nr. Rajbai Matas Madh at Dhrangadhra Surendranagar - 363310 [PAN: BZSPP0527P] Vs. The ITO, ITO ward – 3,Dudhrej Road, Surendranagar, Gujarat - 363001 अपीलाथȸ / Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent Ǔनधा[ǐरतीकȧओरसे /Assessee by Shri Rupesh Shah, Ld. AR राजèवकȧओरसे /Revenue by Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of hearing: 08.08.2025 उɮघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Pronouncement on: 25.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: 1. The Miscellaneous Application (MA) filed by the assessee in the case of ITA -244/RJT/2023 dated. 29/08/2024 and the application is supported by the Affidavit of the Counsel of the assessee, it was alleged that during the course of argument, it was submitted that after hearing on merits Honorable Account Member agreed to send the above matter before the CIT (A) as the issue was not decided on merits therefore, the assessee advocate Rupesh R Shah has requested the Bench that please send the matter before the Jurisdictional officer being various papers are in vernacular Language (Gujarati) and unnecessary appellant has to get Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 28/RJT/2024-A.Y. 2013-14 Sh. Ramnikbhai J. Patel v. ITO above papers translating in English and finally all papers are supposed to sent by CIT(A) Faceless being the additional evidence so, he requested to sent before the Jurisdictional officer. 2. That during the course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that looking to the facts of the case a. The assessee is living in Village and having agricultural land, and only income is by way of agricultural, which is taxed. b. The village Narshipara Dist. Surendranagar, that the assessee has only one joint bank account with Saurashtra Gramin Bank at Narshipara, Nr. Swaminarayan Temple, Dhrangadhra. c. No I.T. Return filed, no registration portal of the Income Tax Department, no notice served upon the assessee. However, during the course of appellate proceeding, the assessee has upload documents in support of submission and all deposit and withdrawal for agricultural transaction. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that order passed by the Tribunal in ITA 244/Rjt/2023 for Assessment Year 2013-14, vide order dated 29.08.2024. That there is mistake committed by the assessee which needs to be corrected. The Ld. Counsel submitted that appeal of the assessee was dismissed and the reason that the assessee did not explained the delay in filing the appeal for 409 days. The Ld. Counsel draw our attention to the petition of condonation for delay in filing the appeal before the Bench and stated that the assessee has sufficient cause to condoned the delay, therefore, this appeal may be recalled on the matter of condonation of delay and the Tribunal should hear the case as Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 28/RJT/2024-A.Y. 2013-14 Sh. Ramnikbhai J. Patel v. ITO the assessee has a good case to condoned the delay, however, the tribunal has not condoned the delay. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue did not raise any objection if the order is recalled and hear on application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 5. We have heard both the parties and noted that the there appear to be a mistake in considering the petition of condonation for delay, therefore, we refixed the assessee’s case for fresh hearing on 29.09.2025, the registree of the Court is directed to list the case on the original number. 6. In view of the above, The MA-34/RJT/2020 is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 25/08/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A. L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot (True Copy) Date: 25/08/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot Printed from counselvise.com "