HIREN TAPUBHAI DASANI,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 92/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 May 2026AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) based on the advocate's mistake not being the assessee's fault. The matter was then restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed due to a significant delay, which the assessee attributed to the mistake of their advocate. The CIT(A) did not adjudicate the appeals on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to advocate's error and whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 06/02/2026Pronounced: 05/05/2026

आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

Captioned two appeals filed by the same assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2013-14, are directed against the separate orders under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAC) Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 22.11.2025, which in turn arise out of separate assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, dated 20.09.2021, and penalty order passed by the assessing officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 16.03.2022.

ITA No. 91 & 92/Rjt/2026 Shri Hiren J. Dasani 2. Since, the issue involved in these appeals are common and identical, therefore both these appeals are clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for sake to convenience and brevity.

3.

The appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.91/Rjt/2026 is barred by limitation by 426 days, and the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 92/Rjt/2026 is barred by limitation by 420 days before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee had moved petitions requesting the Ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and stated the reasons for delay. The reasons for delay in both of appeals are same and identical, at the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing these appeals and dismissed these appeals in lemini without adjudicating the issue on merits. The Ld. Counsel submitted that in ITA No.91/Rjt/2026, there was delay of 426 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and in ITA No.92/Rjt/2026 there was delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) for 420 days. The Ld. Counsel explained the reasons for delay that the notices were not served on the assessee’s email-id, provided to the Income Tax Department. Besides the advocate who was handling the appeals did not inform the assessee about the notices issued by the assessing officer and about passing the order of the assessing officer, therefore because of mistake of the advocate of the assessee, the assessee should not be penalised. The assessee handed over the assessment order and penalty order to his advocate on time, however the advocate made a mistake in filing the respective appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore because of the mistake of the advocate of the assessee, the assessee should not be penalised. Hence delay may be condoned.

4.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that mistake of the advocate in filing the appeals are not a sufficient cause to condone the delay, hence, in both the appeals, delay should not be condoned.

Page 2 of 5

ITA No. 91 & 92/Rjt/2026 Shri Hiren J. Dasani 5. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. I note that because of mistake of the advocate of the assessee, the assessee should not be penalised and hence the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned. For that, Reliance is also 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 judgement Hon’ble ITAT, Calcutta Bench, I condone the delay in filing both appeals before the Ld.CIT(A).

7.

Since I have condone the delay in filing these appeals before the Ld.CIT(A), in respective appeals and I note that the Ld.CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue on merit. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel prays the Bench to restore the matter back to the file of the assessing officer, as the assessee wants to submit additional evidences to prove his claim.

8.

On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue did not raise any objection if the matter is restored back to the file of assessing officer.

9.

I have heard both the parties and noted that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not

Page 3 of 5

ITA No. 91 & 92/Rjt/2026 Shri Hiren J. Dasani given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him 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 assessing officer 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. Since, the quantum appeal in ITA No. 91/Rjt/2026 is restored back to the file of assessing officer, than penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, does not have leg to stand, however, in de-novo proceedings the assessing officer may initiate fresh penalty, in accordance with law. I hold and direct accordingly. The assessing officer will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to substantiate its case. 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 assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

10.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Order is pronounced in the open court on 05/05/2026.

Sd/- (Dr. Arjun Lal Saini) लेखा सद�/Accountant Member राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 05/05/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The assessee 2. The Respondent

Page 4 of 5

ITA No. 91 & 92/Rjt/2026 Shri Hiren J. Dasani

3.

CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. Guard File By order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot

Page 5 of 5

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →