JIGNESHKUMAR KANAIYALAL MEHTA,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(1), VADODARA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT and also directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order of dismissal on limitation. The assessee was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of 222 days. The assessee attributed the delay to a former tax consultant's failure to inform them about the dismissal of their appeal by the CIT(A) due to a 76-day delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT and the CIT(A) should be condoned to allow for adjudication on merits. The primary issue was the procedural delay and its impact on the substantive appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
N/A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha
“एसएमसी”/ ‘िवशेष �ायपीठ’/ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद �ायपीठ, अहमदाबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD �ी संजय गग�, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी नरे� �साद िस�ा, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.54/Ahd/2026 िनधा�रण वष� /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Jigneshkumar Kanaiyalal Mehta, Income Tax Officer 1 To 4, Shree Hari Corner, R.C. बनाम/ Ward 1(2)(1), Dutt Road, Vadodara Gujarat- Vadodara -390007 v/s. 390007 �थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AFJPM9838E (अपीलाथ�/ Appellant) (�� यथ�/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jwalant Shah, AR Revenue by : Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 29/06/2026 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 Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] dated 06.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.
ITA No.54/Ahd/2026, AY-2016-17 Jigneshkumar Kanaiyalal Mehta 2 2. The appeal is time barred by delay of 222 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, the contents of which are reproduced as under: “The appellant most respectfully submits as under: 1. The impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 06.03.2025 was served electronically. However, the appellant was genuinely unaware of the legal consequences of the said order.
At the relevant time, the appellant was relying entirely upon his earlier tax consultant, who failed to inform or advise the appellant about the dismissal of the appeal on limitation and the necessity of filing an appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal within the prescribed time. The appellant bona fide believed that appropriate remedial steps were being taken on his behalf.
Meanwhile on 01/12/2025, your appellant came to know through bank manager that his bank account got attached by the income tax department due to demand related to AY 2016- 17.
Subsequently, when the appellant consulted another Chartered Accountant due to continued attachment of his bank account, he became aware for the first time about the impugned order dated 06.03.2025 and the requirement to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal.
During the course of coercive recovery proceedings, the appellant's bank account was attached and the appellant was compelled to pay 20% of the disputed demand in order to secure release of the said bank account. These circumstances clearly demonstrate that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. 6. The delay in filing the present appeal has occurred due to bona fide reasons, lack of proper professional advice at the relevant time, financial hardship on account of bank attachment, and genuine ignorance of procedural requirements. The appellant has not gained any benefit whatsoever by such delay.
On the contrary, if the delay is not condoned, the appellant would suffer irreparable loss and grave prejudice as the appeal would be dismissed without adjudication on merits, involving a substantial tax demand and serious civil consequences.
ITA No.54/Ahd/2026, AY-2016-17 Jigneshkumar Kanaiyalal Mehta 3
It is a settled principle of law that the length of delay is immaterial and what is to be seen is the sufficiency and bona fides of the cause shown. The appellant places reliance on the following judicial precedents: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471) (SC) N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (SC) Rafiq v. Munshilal (SC) wherein it has been consistently held that a liberal approach must be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay so as to advance substantial justice. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the appellant humbly prays that the delay in filing the present appeal may kindly be condoned and the appeal be admitted for hearing and adjudication on merits.”
The above application is duly supported by an affidavit of the Assessee. Considering the averments made in the application and the submissions of the Ld. AR, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has further brought our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) to submit that there was a delay of 76 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A); that the Ld. CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the Assessee being barred by limitation. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has further submitted that the Assessee has a fair case on merits; that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) as well as before this Tribunal has occurred because of the fact that the Assessee was not communicated about the impugned orders by the concerned counsel in time. He, therefore, has submitted that for the sake of interest of justice, the Assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A).
ITA No.54/Ahd/2026, AY-2016-17 Jigneshkumar Kanaiyalal Mehta 4 5. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has submitted that the Assessee has remained negligent in properly prosecuting his case.
After considering the rival submissions, we find that the appeal of the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) has not been decided on merits and the same has been dismissed being barred by limitation. The Assessee had claimed before the Ld. CIT(A) that the Assessee was travelling outside India during the relevant period, because of which the delay of 76 days had occurred in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
Though there seems to be some negligence on the part of the Assessee in properly prosecuting his appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) as well as before this Tribunal, however, in our view, the interests of justice will be well served if, the Assessee be given an opportunity to present his case on merits before the Ld. CIT(A). The Assessee may be burdened with some reasonable cost for the delay in filing the appeal.
We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the Assessee afresh on merits irrespective of any delay in filing the appeal, however, subject to deposit the costs of Rs.5,000/- in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The Assessee will furnish proof of such deposit of costs before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A), after verifying the same, will proceed to adjudicate upon the appeal of the Assessee on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to the Assessee.
ITA No.54/Ahd/2026, AY-2016-17 Jigneshkumar Kanaiyalal Mehta 5
The appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29/06/2026.
Sd/- Sd/- ( Narendra Prasad Sinha ) ( Sanjay Garg ) Accountant Member Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 29/06/2026 DS, PS 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� ( ) / The CIT(A)- अपील 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध , , अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�ािपत �ित //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gr Infra Projects Limited Ratlam Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Pankaj Das vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
