VINODBHAI RAVJIBHAI SAKHIYA,RAJKOT V. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 182/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Vinod Ravjibhai Sakhiya against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which was based on an earlier order by the Assessing Officer under sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was initially filed late due to administrative oversights by the assessee's tax consultants. The Tribunal found that the delay was due to sufficient cause and condoned it, emphasizing the need to advance substantial justice. On the merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to present his case, as the earlier orders were passed ex-parte. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to re-evaluate the case, ensuring the principles of natural justice are upheld.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315928 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: Bharat Auto Center v. CIT 282 ITR 366
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHEERAJ KUMR GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL RANPURA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"ITA No. 182/Rjt/2025 A.Y 11-12 Vinod R Sakhiya Page | 1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट Ɋायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.182/RJT/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vinod Ravjibhai Sakhiya, Shivam, 4-Radha Nagar, B/h. Laxmi Nagar, Rajkot-360 004 बनाम/ Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course, Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BLQPS 0262 N (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, AR राजèव कȧ ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख /Date of Hearing : 14/05/2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 16/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 28.12.2023, which in turn arises out of an order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, on 06.12.2018. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee, before the Tribunal is barred by limitation of 386 days. The assessee moved an affidavit and petition for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee explained the sufficient cause stating that tax ITA No. 182/Rjt/2025 A.Y 11-12 Vinod R Sakhiya Page | 2 consultant provided his e-mail id in Form-35 as [e-mail], however, on being enquired by assessee for status of appeal, it was came to his knowledge that his consultant ( who was only responsible to file the return of income) forgot to send it to the chartered accountant of the assessee, (who was responsible to file appeal before the Tribunal). However, when the relevant papers were reached to the chartered accountant, who was responsible to file the appeal, before the Tribunal, has also kept the appeal papers for some time in his drawer and forgot to file the appeal. This way, both the Tax consultants of the assessee, committed the mistake, which has resulted into such a delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Counsel stated that because of the mistake of the tax consultant, the assessee should not be penalized and therefore such delay in filing the appeal may be condoned in the interest of justice and matter, may be adjudicated on merit. 3. However, Ld. Senior DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of assessee for condonation of delay and stated that delay should not be condoned, on the ground that it was the mistake of the assessee`s, tax consultant. 4. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. The assessee explained the reasons for delay stating that both tax consultants committed mistake, for which assessee debarred for filing appeal before the Tribunal in time. There is a statutory limit prescribed for filing of appeal in the Act. The invocation of the power to condone any delay, major or minor, in observing such time limit is possible only on the satisfaction of the authorities, regarding the appellant having been unable to file the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. The appellant cannot be entitled to automatic admission of appeal filed after the time limit. The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the \"sufficient cause\" which means an ITA No. 182/Rjt/2025 A.Y 11-12 Vinod R Sakhiya Page | 3 adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. 5. However, the words ‘sufficient cause’ should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice where no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the applicant [Bharat Auto Center v. CIT 282 ITR 366]. Thus, mistake of the lawyer or accountant/ tax consultant may be a good reason for condoning delay. Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. I, accordingly, condone the delay. 6. On merit, at the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the assessing officer may be granted to the assessee. 7. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that there is no point to give second inning to the assessee and assessee`s appeal should be dismissed, as the assessee was negligent before both the lower authorities, as he did not appear before both the lower authorities. 8. I have heard both the parties and note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non- speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. I note that ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue in respect of the ground raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal, as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Hence, I am of the view ITA No. 182/Rjt/2025 A.Y 11-12 Vinod R Sakhiya Page | 4 that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee, to plead his case before the Assessing Officer. 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, 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 after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee. Needless to direct that before passing the order afresh, the Assessing Officer shall allow opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the evidence at the earliest possible of time before Assessing Officer as and when call for. In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/05/2025. Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) लेखा सदÖय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER राजकोट /Rajkot Ǒदनांक/ Date: 16/05/2025 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S आदेश कì ÿितिलिप अúेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथê/ The Appellant  ÿÂयथê/ The Respondent  आयकर आयुĉ/ CIT  आयकर आयुĉ(अपील)/ The CIT(A)  िवभागीय ÿितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  गाडªफाईल/ Guard File // True Copy // By order/आदेश से, सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, राजकोट "