SHRI VALARAM TIRTHDHAM CHARITABLE TRUST,KUCHCHH, BHUJ vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT

ITA 21/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 April 2026AY 2015-165 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the advocate's mistake and the need for a liberal approach in such matters. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed due to a significant delay. The assessee attributed the delay to the advocate's mistake and non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal considered the delay and the reasons provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and if so, whether the matter should be decided on merits or restored for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Hearing: 16/03/2026Pronounced: 09/04/2026

आदेश /ORDER

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned two appeals filed by the same assessee, pertaining to assessment years (AY) 2013-14 & 2015-16, 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 23.12.2025, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 04.09.2014.

Since, the issue involved in these appeals are common and identical, therefore both these appeals are clubbed and heard together and are decided by the consolidated order for sake to convenience and brevity.

ITA No.19 & 21/Rjt/2026 Shri Valaram Tirthdham Charitable Trust v. ITO 3. Both appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No.19 & 21/Rjt/2026, are barred by limitation by 3782 days and 2847 days, before the learned CIT(A). That is, in ITA No. 19/Rjt/2026, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay for 3782 days and dismiss the appeal of the assessee and in ITA No. 21/Rjt/2026, the ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay for 2847 days, and dismissed the appeal of the assessee, on account of delay. In both these apples, the reasons for delay and the sufficient cause explained by the assessee are similar and identical. The assessee had moved respective petitions for condonation of delay, before learned CIT(A), however learned CITA did not condone the delay, and dismissed both the appeals on account of delay.

Learned 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 merit. 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, therefore, assessee was not aware about passing the order by the assessing officer. Besides, the advocate who was handling these appeals did not inform the assessee about the notices issued by 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, however the advocate made mistake and did not file the these appeals before the ld.CIT(A), on time. Therefore, because of the mistake of the advocate of the assessee, the assessee should not be penalised. Hence, delay may be condoned in both appeals.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue, submitted that in these two cases no "sufficient cause" was shown by the appellant to explain the huge/unreasonable delay in filing of these appeals. Rather, this is a clear case of deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant. The Period of delay is a factor to be considered while considering a delay condonation application, since the law assists those that are vigilant with their rights, and

Page 2 of 5

ITA No.19 & 21/Rjt/2026 Shri Valaram Tirthdham Charitable Trust v. ITO not those that sleep thereupon. The law of limitation in India identifies the need for limiting litigation by striking a balance between the interests of the State and the litigant. The general rule of the law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay, the onus of proving which lies on the appellant as clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the highest Court of Law. Hence, delay should not be condoned in both the appeals.

We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We note that because of mistake of the advocate of the assessee, the assessee should not be penalised and hence the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and for this, 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. 7. On professional advice, we note that the Courts and Tribunals have consistently held that in the matter of condonation of delay, pragmatic and liberal approach should be taken. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held the same in case of Investment Trust v. Ujagarsingh observing that unless mala- fide or negligence writ, large delay should be condoned and appeals should not be rejected on technical ground of delay and they should be ordinarily decided on merits. We note that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has also considered this Page 3 of 5

ITA No.19 & 21/Rjt/2026 Shri Valaram Tirthdham Charitable Trust v. ITO

aspect of condonation of delay in case of Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (283 ITR 149) and held that... "The position in law is well settled that an assessee should be granted due relief where it is due without standing on technicalities and the revenue must bear the established legal position in mind while dealing with applications seeking condonation of delay. It is necessary that liberal approach is adopted in such a matter so as to ensure that substantive rights are not defeated on the basis of technicalities or limitation. "

We note that the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing these appeals before ld.CIT(A). Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. We, accordingly, condone the delay, before ld.CIT(A), in both appeals.

Since, we have condoned the delay in filing these appeals before learned CIT( A) and we note that learned CIT(A) did not adjudicate these appeals on merit. We also note that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the assessing officer may be granted to the assessee. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the finding of the assessing officer. We note that in these assessee’s cases under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 143(1) of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex- parte order, because learned CIT (A) dismissed these appeals on account of delay, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 10. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the

Page 4 of 5

ITA No.19 & 21/Rjt/2026 Shri Valaram Tirthdham Charitable Trust v. ITO

ld. CIT(A). The assessee, now, wants to submit additional documents and evidences, therefore, we of the view that matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer, for fresh adjudication. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we 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. We 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. For statistical purposes, these appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

11.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 09/04/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [ Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha ] [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] �ाियक सद�/ Judicial Member लेखा सद�/Accountant Member //True Copy// Rajkot Date: 09/04/2026. आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथ�/ The Assessee  ��थ�/ The Respondent  आयकर आयु�/ CIT  आयकर आयु�(अपील)/ The CIT(A)  िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण/ DR, ITAT, Rajkot  गाड� फाईल/ Guard File By order, (Truce// Copy) Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot

Page 5 of 5

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →