What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the delay. Citing a similar case, the Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations when there is no intentional delay. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The assessee filed a revised return due to an inadvertent mistake in reporting gross receipts. The CPC processed the original return and made an addition, which the assessee was unaware of. The appeal before the CIT(A) was filed with a significant delay, which the CIT(A) refused to condone, dismissing the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the substantial delay in filing the appeal without providing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

Rajeshkumar Jivrajbhai Vandra… vs ITO | s.143(1) | ITAT Surat 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: Shri T.R. Sentil Kumar & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (PHYSICAL HEARING) Before: Shri T.R. Sentil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member

ITA No: 94/SRT/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Rajeshkumar Jivrajbhai Vandra Dy. CIT (CPC), 402 A-1, Akshar Plaza, Bengaluru Near Baps Swaminarayan Vs Current Mandir Adajan, Jurisdiction: Surat-395009 Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2)(1), PAN: ADQPV9213P Surat (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Mehul Shah, CA Revenue Represented: Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 05-05-2026 Date of pronouncement : 23-07-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the appellate order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur arising out of the intimation order passed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18.

I.T.A No. 94//SRT/2026 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 2 Rajeshkumar Jivrajbhai Vandra.vs. ITO

Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 07.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.7,30,310/- which consisting of professional income and income from other sources. The assessee claims that the Tax Consultant had inadvertently shown incorrect gross receipt amounting to Rs. 10,26,446/- without the knowledge of the assessee. Whereas the presumptive income offered to tax as calculated u/s 44ADA of the Act was shown correctly as Rs. 8,77,864/- (being 50% of gross receipt of Rs. 17,55,727/-). Thus, there is no deliberate attempt to conceal any income and only inadvertent mistake in filling up the particular of gross receipt in Sr. No. E3 of Schedule BP in the ITR.

2.1. It is therefore, the assessee filed a revised return on 20.05.2018 showing corrected gross receipts amounting to Rs. 17,55,727/- without any corresponding change in the gross total income under tax payable. However, the same was not considered by the CPC and intimation u/s 143(1) dated 30.03.2019 passed making an addition of Rs. 6,23,710/- in the total income of the assessee. Without aware of the above intimation and demand, the assessee was expecting refund pertain to the A.Ys. 2019-20 and 2020-21. Then he came to know about the intimation for A.Y. 2017-18 and thereafter approached the legal counsel and file appeal before ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 1816 days. The ld. CIT(A) refused the condonation the substantial delay of 1816 days thereby dismissed the appeal in limine.

Aggrieved against the appellate order, assessee is in appeal before us, raising following Grounds of Appeal:-

I.T.A No. 94//SRT/2026 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 Rajeshkumar Jivrajbhai Vandra.vs. ITO

On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the law on subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal before learned CIT(A). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition without passing any speaking order. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer (CPC) in making adjustment u/s 143(1) which is against the scope and provision of the said section. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer (CPC) in making addition of Rs. 6,23,710/- being variance of gross receipts shown in Schedule BP of ITR and Form 26AS 5. It is therefore prayed that the above addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by learned CIT(A) may please be deleted. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is seen Form No. 35 clause 15, the reasons for the delay is explained by the assessee as follows:-

“It is to be noted that there is a delay of 1816 days in filing of appeal. The reason for the delay in filing appeal is attributable to the fact that the assessee was unaware of the Intimation order being passed. It was only when the assessee approached his regular Tax Consultant with the query regarding non-receipt of refund pertaining to AY 2019- 20 and AY 2020-21, he came to know that the Intimation order u/s. 143(1) for AY 2017-18 was already passed and subsequent refunds were adjusted against the outstanding demand, his Tax Consultant instructed him to meet the Legal Counsel at Rasesh Shah & Co. who advised him to file the appeal immediately. Hence the appeal is being filed with the required documents belatedly.”

4.1. Ld. CIT(A) though reproduced the above reasons in his order, however refused the condone the delay on the ground of substantial delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. It is further seen that no opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee to substantiate the

I.T.A No. 94//SRT/2026 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 4 Rajeshkumar Jivrajbhai Vandra.vs. ITO

delay in filing the appeal. In similar situation Co-ordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Shri Ganadhiraj Co-op Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO vide order dated 28.03.2025 in ITA Nos. 898 to 900/Mum/2025 held as follows:- “We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by Ld. AR. by the assessee. First, we shall consider the delay in filing appeal before Id CIT(A), if it was liable to condone or not and / or the appeal of the assessee was impliedly admitted by not issuing specific show cause notice on the issue of delay. The Id AR of the assessee vehemently argued that intimation under section 143(1) was never communicated or served on the assessee either through email or in physical form and that the assessee came to know about adverse order against them, when notice under section 245 was served on assessee in July 2023 and that after obtaining copy of the order/ intimation of CPC, the assessee filed appeal. It is also the contention of Id AR of the assessee that there was only 75 days of delay in filing such appeal before Id CIT(A), which ought to have been condoned. We find that such facts were clearly mentioned in column -15 of Form-35 that intimation under section 143(1) was not served. In our view, the Id CIT(A) in such circumstances either ought to have obtained report from the jurisdictional AO and a specific submission on such issue from assessee. No such exercise was carried out by Id CIT(A). Admittedly, the Id CIT(A) sought written submissions of the merit of the alleged additions. We find that Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court in Stride Multitrade Private Limited Vs ACIT (supra) held that when Ld. CIT(A) asking the petitioner (assessee) to furnish ground wise written submission on the grounds of appeal, it would mean that condonation of delay application has been allowed by Ld. CIT(A). We find the assessee has filed affidavit of one of its members who is also authorised signatory and stated all such facts on oath. On considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find that when the Id CIT(A) has not expressly asked the assessee to explain the alleged delay, it was impliedly considered to be allowed as per the decision of Jurisdictional High Court. We are conscious of well know principal of condonation of delay that when technical consideration and cause of substantial justice are kept against each other, cause of substantial justice may be preferred. Thus, keeping in view of the facts that there is no melafide or intentional delay in filing appeal before Id CIT(A), rather due to the facts explained hereinabove, the order of Id CIT(A) on dismissing the appeal assessee is set aside.” 5. In the present case, before making addition/disallowance CPC sent a communication dated 15.05.2018 to the assessee. Immediate thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income in Form ITR-4 on 20.05.2018, however CPC not considered the revised return and

I.T.A No. 94//SRT/2026 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 5 Rajeshkumar Jivrajbhai Vandra.vs. ITO

passed the intimation u/s 143(1) on 30.03.2019. Therefore, we deem it fit to set aside the order passed by the lower authorities and remit the issue back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to give proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass order within in the provisions of law. Needless to say, the assessee should file all necessary materials before JAO for passing the order on merits. Thus, the Grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 23-07-2026

Sd/- Sd/-

(RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat : Dated 23/07/2026 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

I.T.A No. 94//SRT/2026 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 6 Rajeshkumar Jivrajbhai Vandra.vs. ITO

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, सूरत

RAJESHKUMAR JIVRAJBHAI VANDRA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), SURAT

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