SHYAMAL TRADING COMPANY,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

आदेश/ORDER Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M

Captioned four appeals filed by assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19, are 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), which in turn arise out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act and penalty orders under sections 272A(1) (d), 272A(1)(b) and 270A of the Act.

ITA Nos. 291, 295, 306 & 314/Rjt/2025 M/s. Shyamal Trading Company 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; and these appeals relate to one assessee, therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.

(i) ITA No.292/RJT/26, AY 18-19, order u/s 147 r.w.s.144- delay 175 days.

(ii) ITA No.306/RJT/26, AY 18-19, order u/s 272A(1)(d)- delay 230 days.

(iii) ITA No.295/RJT/26, AY 17-18, order u/s 272A(1)(b)- delay 175 days.

(iv) ITA No.314/RJT/26, AY 18-19, order u/s 270A- delay 230 days.

4.Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that all these appeals were dismissed by the learned CIT(A) on account of delay, despite the fact that assessee has explained the sufficient cause to condone the delay before ld.CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the proceedings before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has explained the sufficient cause stating that the chartered accountant/ advocate appointed by the assessee did not co-operate and did not file these appeals, on time, before the learned CIT(A). Therefore, because of the mistake of the chartered accountant, the assessee should not be penalized. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay and stated that these appeals should be dismissed on account of delay.

Page 2 of 4

ITA Nos. 291, 295, 306 & 314/Rjt/2025 M/s. Shyamal Trading Company appeals. Since all these appeals relate to only one assessee, therefore reasons for condonation of delay submitted by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) is similar and identical. However, Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submitted that the assessee has failed to explain this sufficient cause to condone the delay before CIT(A) and the delay should not be condoned. These appeals should be dismissed on account of delay. I note that because of the mistake committed by the chartered accountant/ advocate of the assessee, the assessee should not be penalized. Reliance is placed on the decision of I.T.A.T., 'C' Bench, Kolkata in the case of M/s. Garg Bros. Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. DCIT [ITA Nos.2519 to 2521/Kol/2017, order dated 18.04.2018], wherein under similar set of facts and reasons, the Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to condone the delay of 211 days by holding as under:

"3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the considered opinion that assessee was under a bona fide belief that the impugned order of Pr. CIT was not appealable before this Tribunal since they were not advised by their Tax Consultants about this legal right. Later on, when a Senior Lawyer advised them to file an appeal, the assessees immediately took steps to file the appeals. Therefore, the delay caused. We note that delay was occurred because of the wrong advice of the Tax Professional for which assessees cannot be penalized. For the ends of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.” 6. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision of I.T.A.T., 'C' Bench, Kolkata in the case of M/s. Garg Bros. Pvt. Ltd. & Others, I condone the delay in filing all these appeals. Since the assessee explained sufficient cause in all the appeals. Therefore, I condone the delay in filing these appeals before CIT(A) in ITA Nos. 291, 295, 306 & 314/Rjt/2026.

Page 3 of 4

ITA Nos. 291, 295, 306 & 314/Rjt/2025 M/s. Shyamal Trading Company any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). Hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. 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, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. 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 Ld. CIT(A)to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the all appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 08/06/2026.

Sd/- (Dr. Arjun Lal Saini) लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 08/06/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The assessee 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. Guard File By order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot

Page 4 of 4