LOKTANTRA JAGRUT PARTY,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. DCIT CENT CIR 1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

ITA 638/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 July 2026AY 2022-233 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, considering the assessee's submissions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a registered political party, filed appeals before the ITAT which were time-barred by 120 days. The assessee attributed the delay to a negligent tax consultant who failed to inform them about the CIT(A)'s orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned due to the negligence of the tax consultant and lack of awareness of the CIT(A)'s order. Whether the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR

Hearing: 28/04/2026Pronounced: 22/07/2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

Both the captioned appeals relate to the same assessee, which is registered political party, and are against separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), both dated 13.08.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2022-23 & 2023-24.

ITA Nos.638 & 639/Ahd/2026[Loktantra Jagrut Party vs. DCIT] A.Ys. 2022-23 & 2023-24 - 2 – 2. Both the appeals are time barred by 120 days. Separate applications for the condonation of delay alongwith affidavits of the assessee have been filed, wherein, it has been pleaded that the assessee had appointed a Tax Consultant for filing Income Tax Return (in short ‘ITR’) and pursuing the income tax related litigation. However, the said Consultant did not pay proper attention to the assessee’s cases. That the said Consultant neither replied to any notices received during the appellate proceedings, nor did he inform the assessee about the same. That the members of the assessee party were not aware of the orders passed by the CIT(A) and, therefore, could not file the appeal in time. The assessee has relied upon various case laws and has submitted that the delay in filing the present appeals was not intentional, but, in fact, the assessee was not aware of the passing of the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and under such circumstances, the delay should be condoned. Considering the averments made in the application, the delay in filing of the both appeals is, hereby, condoned.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has brought our attention to the impugned orders of the CIT(A) to submit that in both the appeals, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals being barred by limitation by 27 days. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee was under bonafide belief that the limitation period for filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was 60 days, however, the same, in fact, is 30 days. That the assessee under the bonafide belief that appeal has been filed within limitation period,

ITA Nos.638 & 639/Ahd/2026[Loktantra Jagrut Party vs. DCIT] A.Ys. 2022-23 & 2023-24 - 3 – did not file any application for condonation of delay. Further, as pleaded above, the Tax Consultant appointed by the assessee did not represent the case of the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A), resulting into passing of the ex parte order of the CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld.CIT(A).

Considering the above submissions, the delay in filing of the appeals before the CIT(A) is, hereby, condoned and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits. With the above observations, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals preferred by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

This Order pronounced on 22/07/2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 22/07/2026 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. �वभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, 5. ITAT, Ahmedabad गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →