VIJAY VISABHAI KHUNTI,JAMNAGAR V. ITO WD-1 DWARKA, DWARKA

ITA 421/RJT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Vijay Visabhai Khunti, a pure agriculturist and illiterate, who faced procedural delays in filing appeals against the orders of the Income Tax Department. The delays were attributed to the negligence of his appointed Chartered Accountant and his own lack of awareness regarding the legal timelines. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delays convincing and sufficient to warrant condonation. It noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the case on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26335 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: DIVYESH SODHA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; 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.421/RJT/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Vijay Visabhai Khunti, At Hathla, Bhanvad Dist.- Jamnagar, Gujarat-360590. Vs. The I.T.O., Ward-1, Dwarka. èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ARDPK 5885 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Divyesh Sodha, A.R. Respondent by Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 17/10/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, 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 27/02/2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO”) u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 24/02/2022. 2. I note that there was a delay of 172 days in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) as well as there was a delay of 45 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. CIT(A) had not condoned the delay in filing appeal. I, note that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee has submitted the reasons for condonation of delay and submitted that he is ITA 421/Rjt/2024 Vijay Visabhai Khunti Vs ITO Page | 2 a pure agriculturist. Delay has happened because of his illiteracy. He unwillingly ignored the notices and correspondence received from the I.T. Department because of his illiteracy. The ld. Counsel also submitted that the advocate appointed by the assessee, was negligent and did not take care to file the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), on time, and also before this tribunal, hence such delay has resulted because of the reason that the advocate of the assessee, did not take the steps on time to file the appeal before both the authorities. 3. However, in spite of having ‘sufficient cause’, I find that the learned CIT (A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4. Before the Tribunal there is a delay of 45 days in filing appeal for which the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay with affidavit of assessee. In the condonation application, the assessee submitted that he approached one of the Chartered Accountant to seek his services for representing his case before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee handed all the documents to him in time. When assessee asked from C.A. about filing of appeal, he responded that it will be filed and nothing to worry. The assessee was not aware about time limit of filing of appeal. Due to unnecessary delay by the C.A., the appeal could not be filed on time. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that because of the mistake committed by the old C.A., the appeal could not be filed on time. Thereafter, the assessee has appointed another Advocate/Chartered Accountant who has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. In this process, there was a delay of 45 days in filing appeal, which may be condoned in the interest of justice. The assessee stated that he has no fault on his part and prayed to condone the delay. ITA 421/Rjt/2024 Vijay Visabhai Khunti Vs ITO Page | 3 5. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue has raised objection about condonation of delay and would submit that such huge delay should not be condoned on such flimsy ground. The assessee is a habitual defaulter and the assessee not deserve any leniency at this stage. The ld. Sr.DR for the revenue submits that the assessee has filed appeal belatedly before the ld. CIT(A) and before the Bench, there is also a delay of 45 days in filing appeal. If the Bench convinced with the plea of assessee that delay may be condoned and one more opportunity can be provided to assessee to decide the appeal on merit, then on that situation, a heavy cost can be imposed on the assessee. 6. I have heard the submissions of both the parties and have also gone through the reasons given by the assessee for condonation of delay. I find that the assessee approached one of the Chartered Accountant to seek his services for representing his case before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee handed all the documents to him in time. When assessee asked from C.A. about filing of appeal, he responded that it will be filed and nothing to worry. The assessee was not aware about time limit of filing of appeal. Due to unnecessary delay by the C.A., the appeal could not be filed on time. The assessee was totally unaware about the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the assessee totally dependent on his C.A.. 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, therefore, I condone the delay of 172 days before the ld. CIT(A) and I also condone 45 days delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. ITA 421/Rjt/2024 Vijay Visabhai Khunti Vs ITO Page | 4 7. Since I have condoned the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) as well as before the Tribunal and noted that the ld. CIT(A) did not pass the order as per mandate of provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, that is, there is no adjudication by the ld. CIT(A) on merit, as per material available on record. It is not a disputed fact that the assessee has not appeared and complied the notices issued by the lower authorities. Both the lower authorities have issued many of the notices but the assessee could not comply the notices and had not filed any submissions before them, due to which both the lower authorities have passed their orders in ex- parte proceedings. 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 Assessing Officer 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 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand only) to be deposited in Prime Minister’s Relief Fund withing 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. 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 Assessing Officer 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 documents, evidences and replies as soon as possible without any further delay. The Assessing Officer is further directed to verify all the details, documents and evidences and decide the issue in accordance ITA 421/Rjt/2024 Vijay Visabhai Khunti Vs ITO Page | 5 with law. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only. 8. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order is pronounced on 17/10/2024 in the open court. Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot *Ranjan Ǒदनांक/ Date: 17/10/2024 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 "