What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 25,000/- as costs. The impugned ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for a fresh decision on merits.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a significant delay of 245 days. The assessee's counsel argued that the delay was due to extensive travel and that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if an ex-parte order should be set aside to allow the assessee to present their case.

Manishkumar Hansrajbhai Vaghasiya vs DCIT | ITAT Ahmedabad 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S N Soparkar, Sr. Advocate

Hearing: 29/07/2026Pronounced: 31/07/2026

आदेश/O R D E R

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 06/02/2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. Issue of Notice u/s 148 is merely a “change in opinion”.

ITA No.2682/Ahd/2025 Manishkumar Hansrajbhai Vaghasiya vs. DCIT Asst.Year 2016-17 2 2. Disallowance of set-off of business loss of Rs. 3,17,43,292/- and treating it as a speculative business loss.” 3. There is a delay of 245 days in filing the present appeal. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional rather, it was due to the reason that the assessee was extensively undertaking domestic and international travel. That the assessee tried many a times to pursue the matter but could not do so because of the compulsions beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte order of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits. He has submitted that the assessee have been burdened with taxes, which the assessee, otherwise, will not be liable to pay under the law and that a sheer prejudice will be caused to the assessee if assessee is not given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A).

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied on the findings of the lower authorities.

We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the record. Admittedly, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte of the assessee. There is also a delay in filing the appeal of 245 days. However, at the same time, we are of the view, that the interests of justice demand that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A). For the negligence on the part of the assessee in pursuing the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and not filing the

ITA No.2682/Ahd/2025 Manishkumar Hansrajbhai Vaghasiya vs. DCIT Asst.Year 2016-17 3 appeal in time before this Tribunal, the assessee can be burdened with some reasonable costs which we fix at Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. Subject to deposit of the aforesaid amount of costs in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits in accordance with law. The assessee will furnish the proof of deposit of cost before the Ld. CIT(A).

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Narendra Prasad Sinha) (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 31/07/2026 TRUE COPY Tanmay, Sr. P.S. आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु� अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad

MANISHKUMAR HANSRAJBHAI VAGHASIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments