DINESH MULCHAND KARIA,DEVBHUMI DWARKA SURAJKARADI vs. CIT (A), NEW DELHI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member And Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 313/RJT/2025 [ �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19 ] Dinesh Mulchand Karia, ITO, WD – 1, Hanuman Society, Surajkaradi, Vs. Dwarka, Gujarat-361335 Devbhumi Dwarka – 361347, Gujarat �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AQYPK0257B (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Balwant Singh, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Anandi Dixit, Ld. CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 10/06/2026 12/06/2026 Date of Pronouncement :

ORDER Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2018-19, is directed against the order u/s-250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’], dated 21.03.2025.

ITA No. 313/Rjt/2025 90 [ AY 2018-19 ] Dinesh Mulchand Karia v. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs.4,09,270 and claimed TCS credit aggregating to Rs.2,80,147, resulting in a refund claim of Rs.2,71,940. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, instead of granting the refund claimed, CPC disallowed a sum of Rs.37,92161.35 raised a demand of Rs.9,90,360 against the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the said adjustment, the assessee filed an application u/s 154 of the Act before the competent authority. The rectification application was disposed of on 16.06.2021 without granting the relief sought by the assessee. Against the said rectification order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 18.10.2022, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 222-days without adjudicating the issues on merits. 4. Thereafter, the assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order dated 18.10.2022, contending that while considering the issue of condonation of delay, the appeal had in fact been filed within the prescribed limitation period and, therefore, dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay constituted a mistake apparent from the record. However, the Ld. CIT(A), without examining the contention of the assessee, held that no rectifiable mistake existed in the appellate order and directed the assessee to approach the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Consequently, the rectification application was rejected vide order dated 21.03.2025. 5. Still, aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to examine the factual contention raised in the rectification application and rejected the same mechanically without adjudicating whether there was actually any delay in filing the appeal. It was

Page 2 of 4

ITA No. 313/Rjt/2025 90 [ AY 2018-19 ] Dinesh Mulchand Karia v. ITO therefore contended that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. From the record, it is noticed that an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was issued by CPC against which the assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act. The said application was rejected on 01.06.2021. Against the rejection order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.10.2022 on the ground of delay of 222-days. 8. Subsequently, instead of filing a further appeal against the said order, the assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act before the same appellate authority contending that there was in fact no delay in filing the appeal and that the dismissal on the ground of limitation was erroneous. The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the rectification application without properly examining the factual contention raised by the assessee. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the controversy essentially revolves around the factual aspect regarding limitation and maintainability of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The record further indicates multiple proceedings arising out of the original intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter requires fresh examination by the Ld. CIT(A). 9. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the entire factual matrix, including the issue relating to limitation, condonation of delay, and all connected grievances of the assessee arising from the proceedings u/s 143(1) and 154 of the

Page 3 of 4

ITA No. 313/Rjt/2025 90 [ AY 2018-19 ] Dinesh Mulchand Karia v. ITO

Act, and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Order is pronounced in the open Court on 12/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] [ Shri Sonjoy Sarma ] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �याियक सद�य/Judicial Member

राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 12/062026 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 //True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot

Page 4 of 4