TREXGEN PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD V. NFAC, DELHI JURI. AO- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

ITA 1210/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Trexgen Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding a penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing a three-day delay in filing the appeal. The assessee contended that the appeal was filed within the permissible period, considering the actual receipt of the penalty order. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting the absence of a notice for the alleged delay and the need to adhere to the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 707204 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Madhu Dadha Vs. ACIT, Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B.P. SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY R. SHAH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE S/SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1210/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Trexgen Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. 1107, Matrix Tower Nr. Divya Bhaskar Prahladnagar Ahmedabad 380 015. PAN : AAECT 5981 A Vs DCIT, Cir.2(1)(1) Vadodara. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/07/2025 घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 10/07/2025 आदेश आदेश आदेश आदेश/O R D E R PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the appellate order dated 4.3.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)] refusing to condone the delay of three days in filing the appeal relating to the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Short controversy in this appeal is, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 2.2.2022 as against the penalty order dated 1.1.2022 levied under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The appeal was filed before the ITA No.1210/Ahd/2025 2 NFAC on 2.2.2022, which is well within the period of limitation of 30 days, as provided under the Act. Thus, while filing the Form No.35 the assessee claimed that there is no delay in filing the appeal. However, the ld.CIT(A) held that there was a delay of 3 days in filing the above appeal and no explanation offered by the assessee, thereby dismissed the appeal in limine. 3. Aggrieved against the appellate order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: “1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in not admitting the appeal at the threshold, solely on the ground of delay in filing of appeal without adjudicating it on merits, thereby failing to consider the substantive issues raised by the appellant in respect of the penalty levied under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"). 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the order under Section 270A of the Act was passed on 01.01.2022 and was served upon the appellant on 03.01.2022. Owing to the two-day gap between the date of the order and its actual receipt, the appellant was under a bona fide belief that the appeal had been filed within the prescribed time period. Consequently, no separate application for condonation of delay was filed along with Form 35. The learned CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, admitted the appeal and should have decided the same on merits. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the appellant submits that the Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the present case is well- founded on substantial legal and factual grounds. However, he proceeded to reject the appeal without considering the written submissions solely on account of the absence of a formal condonation application, thereby depriving the appellant of an opportunity to be heard on merits. In view of this, the appellant prays before your honour to kindly send the case back to the file of the Hon'ble CIT(A) for fresh consideration on its merits. 4. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee received penalty order on 3.1.2022, therefore the appeal filed on 2.2.2022 is well within the limitation period and no question of delay ITA No.1210/Ahd/2025 3 in filing the appeal. However, the ld.CIT(A) calculated 30 days period from the date of penalty order viz. 1.1.2022 and held that three days delay in filing the appeal. Further, the ld.CIT(A) has not called for any explanation for the so-called delay in filing the appeal. Thus, he requested to set aside the appellate order by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. Per contra, the ld.Sr.DR appearing for the Revenue supported by the order passed by the ld.CIT(A). 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the material available on record. As held by the ld.CIT(A) that there is a delay of three days in filing the appeal, he should have put a notice of hearing to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Since, in Form No.35, the assessee clams service of penalty order as 3.1.2022, thereby there is no delay in filing appeal. Further, we notice that the case laws relied on by the ld.CIT(A) of Madras High Court in the case of Madhu Dadha Vs. ACIT reported in 317 ITR 458 (Mad) held that liberal approach is to be adopted while deciding the condonation of delay, and the land-mark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji, 167 ITR 471 (SC). Thus, in our considered view, the ld.CIT(A) is not correct in dismissing the appeal without affording an opportunity to explain the case, whether there is delay in filing the appeal or not. Whereas, he dismissed the appeal without offering opportunity of hearing to the assessee which is against principle of natural justice Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to give proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain, if there is any delay in filing the ITA No.1210/Ahd/2025 4 above appeal or not, and then decide the case on merit and in accordance with the provisions of law. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Court on 10th July, 2025 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad,dated 10/07/2025 vk* "