VIJAYKUMAR MANHARBHAI BARIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 97/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 May 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's lack of knowledge and reliance on a negligent consultant. The Tribunal held that the interest of justice requires the assessee to be given an opportunity of hearing, especially since the assessment was ex-parte.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed as time-barred due to significant delays in filing. The assessee, a shift laborer with limited knowledge of tax laws, had relied on a consultant who failed to inform him about assessment proceedings and notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned based on the assessee's explanation of ignorance and reliance on a consultant. Whether the interest of justice prevails over technical considerations of delay in appeal filing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 148,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

For Appellant: Shri P B Parmar, AR, Shri Girish Parihar, Sr.DR
For Respondent: Shri Girish Parihar, Sr.DR
Hearing: 05/03/2026Pronounced: 18/05/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 96 & 97/Ahd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vijaykumar Manharbhai बनाम/ The Deputy Bariya Commissioner of Income Vs. At PO Chikhodara 91, Tax, Mandir valu faliya, Circle 1 (1)(1), Vadodara Dhanyavi Road, Vadodara, Gujarat - 390009 �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : BGEPB 2348 M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ� ओर से /Appellant by : Shri P B Parmar, AR ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Girish Parihar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 05/03/2026 Date of Pronouncement 18/05/2026 (आदेश)/ORDER Both the present appeals relate to the same assessee and have been filed by the assessee against separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), both dated 30-12-2025. Both the appeals pertain to the same Assessment Year and have been passed against the CIT(A) Orders passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) in quantum proceedings and in penalty proceedings under Section 270A .

ITA No.96 & 97/Ahd/2026 [VijaykumarManharbhai Bariya Vs. The DY.CIT ] A.Y. 2018-19 - 2 – 2. The Appeals relating to the same assessee and the issues being related, penalty having been levied on account of the addition made to the income of the assessee in quantum proceedings on account of the same being underreported/ misreported, both the appeals were therefore taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order.

3.

At the outset itself, Ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on account of his appeal being dismissed as non-maintainable by the Ld. CIT (A) by not condoning the delay in the filing of appeal before it. He pointed out that while the quantum appeal was delayed for filing by approximately 900 days, the penalty appeal was delayed for filing before the Ld. CIT(A) by 720 days. That the assessee had adduced reasons for delay before the Ld. CIT(A) who had found no merit in the same and accordingly had dismissed the assessee’s appeal as not maintainable, being delayed for filing beyond the prescribed period before him.

4.

The contention of the learned counsel for the assessee was that the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in holding that no reasonable cause had been adduced by the assessee for condoning the delay. He drew our attention to the reasons for the delay explained to the Ld. CIT(A) and mentioned in his statement of facts as under :

“Appellant is individual. Original return of income was filed u/s. 139(1). The case of the assessee was re-opened u/s. 148 as assessee has not declared sales of property in return of income. So, notice uls. 148 was issued but no return of income was filed. During the course of penalty

ITA No.96 & 97/Ahd/2026 [VijaykumarManharbhai Bariya Vs. The DY.CIT ] A.Y. 2018-19 - 3 – proceedings various notices were issued but assessee failed to response the notices. Appellant is individual. During the year assessee being a co-owner of Agri. Land received his share of Rs. 2500000/- Agri, land is not capital asset. The same is exempted u/s. 2(14) of IT Act as Agri. Land is not capital Asset. Appellant has individual and no return in response to notice u/s. 148 was filed. Lrd. AO issued notice for penalty of Rs. 1441626/- levied u/s. 270A for under reporting of income as a consequence of misreporting of income as per details given in assessment order. As regards, noncompliance of notices while filing return in ITR-1, assessee provided the email address and phone No. of himself. However, no notice of hearing of assessee was served on such email and in absence of notice but served on email of Drupadbhai which was reflected in ITR for A.Y 2018-19, assessee could not make compliance and ex-partee order was passed. I am working as shift Labourer and due to my little knowledge of Income Tax Act and I am also not educated. When I received notice u/s. 148 I have handed over my assessment work to Shri. Drupadbhai. As Drupadbhai has given his email ID, notices were served to Drupadbhai but he has not informed me regarding notices and expartee assessment when I received order on 06/01/2025, I consult Drupadbhai but he has not done anything. So, I consult Advocate who advise me to file appeal and I have changed my profile on site and filed appeal” 5. Referring to the above he stated that being a shift laborer he was unaware of the technicalities of the Income Tax proceedings and therefore on receipt of notice under Section 148 of the Act he had given email ID of the consultant, who in turn had not informed him of the proceedings which was carried out before the AO. Accordingly, he pointed out, that the Assessment Order was also passed ex-parte. That he received the assessment order only on 6th January, 2025 when he asked his consultant to do the needful, but who did noting about it. That it was only later, on the advice of an advocate, that he filed appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) and also changed his profile on the income tax portal providing correct

ITA No.96 & 97/Ahd/2026 [VijaykumarManharbhai Bariya Vs. The DY.CIT ] A.Y. 2018-19 - 4 – email ID for communication. Learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that on account of being unaware of the technicalities of Income Tax proceedings and having relied on a consultant who failed to carry out his work diligently, the delay occurred in the filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). He contended that the non- condonation of delay would result in grave injustice to the assessee since it would result in the addition made to his income, which was multiple times the income returned by him, to be confirmed attracting huge tax demand and penalty as a consequence which he contented were very serious and debilitating consequences. He pointed out that while in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act he had filed return declaring income of Rs.4,99,270/- from salary and income from other sources, the AO in an ex-parte Assessment Order had made addition to his income of Rs.25 lakhs which was the consideration received from the sale of land by him. The Learned counsel for the assessee contended that on account of not being able to represent his case before the authorities below the addition had been wrongly made to his income since the fact of the matter was that the impugned land was rural agricultural land which was not liable to be treated as a capital asset for the purposes of computing capital gains on the sale thereof. That even otherwise the land was co-owned by him with other owners in whose case no addition had been made by the department. He pleaded that if given an opportunity of hearing he would be able to demonstrate his case before the Revenue authorities and denial of such opportunity would cause

ITA No.96 & 97/Ahd/2026 [VijaykumarManharbhai Bariya Vs. The DY.CIT ] A.Y. 2018-19 - 5 – grave injustice to the assessee. He therefore pleaded that the delay in the filing of both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal be condoned.

6.

Learned DR vehemently objected to the condonation of delay.

7.

I have heard both the parties. The only plea of the learned counsel for the assessee before me is to condone the delay of 900 and 720 days in the filing of appeal by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) in quantum and penalty proceedings respectively.

8.

I have considered the submissions made by the assessee and I agree that there was sufficient cause adduced by the assessee leading to the delay in the filing both quantum and penalty appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Undoubtedly the assessee has pleaded that he was a shift laborer and was unaware of the proceedings carried out during assessment being not attended to since he had provided the email ID his consultant who had not taken necessary action. That for the aforesaid reason also he was unaware of the passing of the Assessment Order. The revenue has not controverted the above contention of the learned counsel for the assessee. In the light of the same, I find reasonable cause for the delay in the filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, since the assessment has been framed ex-parte and addition has been made multiple times to the returned of the income of the assessee, interest of justice demands the assessee to be given an opportunity

ITA No.96 & 97/Ahd/2026 [VijaykumarManharbhai Bariya Vs. The DY.CIT ] A.Y. 2018-19 - 6 – of hearing despite the delay in filing appeal. Courts have unequivocally held that on pitting the consideration of interest of justice against the technical consideration of delay, the interest of Justice should prevail. In the interest of justice and finding the assessee to have adduced reasonable cause, I condone the delay in the filing of both the appeals i.e. in quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). Further, both the appeals are restored back to the file of the AO to be considered afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing the assessee; the levy of penalty to be considered after deciding the issue in quantum. In the light of the above, both the appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

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

This Order pronounced on 18/05/2026 Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 18/05/2026 H.C PS 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. 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- �वभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →