INDRAVADAN BHAILALBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.2381/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Indravadan Bhailalbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 101, Rosettle, Opp. 7, Seas Mall, Ward-1(2)(1), Fatehgunj, Vadodara-390002 Vadodara [PAN No.ACQPP7735D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Indravadan Patel, Assessee Respondent by: Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr. DR 07.04.2026 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 06.05.2026 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Pune vide order dated 29.09.2025 passed for A.Y. 2015-16.

“(1) The impugned in order passed by the ld. Add/JCIT (A)-2, Pune, Faceless Appeal, under Section 250 of the I. T. Act, dated 29/09/2025, in so far as rejecting the appeal on sole ground of limitation, i.e. not condoning the delay, is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, and against the settled law that when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. 2. The ld. Add/JCIT (A)-2, Pune, is not justified, in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal preferred by the appellant without properly appreciating the fact, that the reason for delay in filing the appeal is not intentional or negligence or deliberate, but it is due to the lack of Appellant's personal knowledge of taxing law, as appellant is a Diploma Civil Engineer, and hence, misguided due to the lack of personal

ITA No. 2381/Ahd/2025 Indravadan Bhailalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year –2015-16 - 2–

knowledge of taxing law resulted in a misunderstanding that appeal against order passed by A.O. u/s. 143(3) of the Act can be presented under Part B of Chapter XX of the Act within 120 days from receipt of the order, due to bold letter appeared in para no. 7 of notice of demand. This facts not considered by the ld. Add/JCIT (A)-2, Pune, hence, impugned order is perverse. 3. The ld. Add/JCIT (A)-2, Pune, ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and thereby ought to have admitted the appeal and adjudicated on the grounds raised by appellant in the interest of justice and equity, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case, the Id. Add/JCIT (A)-2, Pune, has erred in passing the impugned Order u/s. 250 of the IT Act, 1961, ex- parte inspite of duly filed submissions/written arguments on application for condonation of delay of 90 days dated 28/01/2021 by the appellant before time. Thus, the order passed without considering the submissions/written arguments on application for condonation of delay of 90 days dated 28/01/2021 is bad in law and against the principle of Natural Justice, i.e. "No one should be condemned unheard". 5. The impugned order is "None Speaking Order", as Ld. Add/JCIT (A)-2, Pune, has failed in recording the reasons for accepting or rejecting of the judgments delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v/s MST Katiji :[1987 LawSuit (SC) 214], N Balakrishnan V/s M Krishnamurthy: [1998 LawSuit (SC) 872] and State of Haryana v/s Chandra Mani: [1996 LawSuit (SC) 218] cited by the appellant with submissions/written arguments on application for condonation of delay of 90 days dated 28/01/2021, and hence also, the impugned order amounts to perverse and miscarriage of justice. 5. The impugned order is "None Speaking Order", as Ld. Add/JCIT (A)-2, Pune, has failed in recording the reasons for accepting or rejecting the affidavit of appellant dated 04/01/2018 and affidavit of registered Income Tax Practitioner Mr. Jignesh Desai dated 03/01/2018, submitted by the appellant along with submissions/ written arguments on application for condonation of delay of 90 days dated 28/01/2021, and hence also, the impugned order amounts to perverse and miscarriage of justice. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the ld. Add/JCIT (A)-2, Pune, in not considering and/or not applying the mind on the application dated 10/09/2025 for an ADJOURNMENT submitted by the appellant, amounts to bad in law and against the principle of Natural Justice, i.e. "No one should be condemned unheard", and hence also, impugned order amounts to perverse and miscarriage of justice. (8) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. Add/JCIT (A)-2, Pune, has erred on facts and in law in not adjudicating the contentions raised by the appellant in the appeal on merit and rejected the appeal. (9) Ld. Add/JCIT (A)-2, Pune, erred in not taking in consideration Paragraph No. 1 & 4 of the application dated 04/01/2018, praying to condone the delay of 90 days.

ITA No. 2381/Ahd/2025 Indravadan Bhailalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year –2015-16 - 3–

(10) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. Add/JCIT (A)-2, Pune, erred in:- (a) considering that, ignorance or misinterpretation of law is not a reasonable cause for condonation of delay. (b) considering that, the claim made by the appellant is an unsubstantiated and unverifiable averment. (c) considering that, delay in filing of appeal was on account of negligence on part of the appellant. (d) considering that, inaction of the appellant is clearly a case of laches without any justifiable cause. (e) considering that, submission filed is not providing any reasonable cause and sufficient reasons for delay relying on judgment delivered by ITAT Jaipur in case of K.G.N.M.M.W. Educational Research & Analysis Society [2015] 54 taxmann.com 329. (f) considering that, the appellant has not adduced any reasonable cause which prevented it from filing the appeal for about 90 days. (11) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Add/JCIT (A)-2, Pune, has erred on facts and in law in relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Majji Sinnemma V. Reddy Sridevi, 2021 SCC online SC 1260 dated 16/12/2021, decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Revision VS Mst. Katiji And Others [(1987) CRP. No.452 of 2010], decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Dabra VS Pyare Ram & others arising out of SLP (c) No. 15793/2019 dated 31/10/2023, decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & others, dated 08/07/202, decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chief Postmaster General and Others vs Living Media India Ltd. 5 ITA No. 3555/Del/2009, (2012) 348 ITR 7(SC) and in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS vs Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project (2008) 17 SCC 448, without appreciating that the facts in the present case are different from that of the aforesaid cases. (12) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. Add/JCIT (A)-2, Pune, has erred on facts and in law in concluding that, delay of about 90 days in filing of appeal is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown under section 249(3) of the I.T. Act and consequently the appeal considered as non-set and the appeal not admitted. (13) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Id. Add/JCIT (A)- 2, Pune, ought to have accept the submissions of appellant and set aside the Assessment Order dtd. 31/08/2017 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by Id. I.T.O., Ward- 1(2)(1), Vadodara.

ITA No. 2381/Ahd/2025 Indravadan Bhailalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year –2015-16 - 4– (14) That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend, substitute or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal as and when require. (15) For the above and other grounds to be urged during the course of hearing of the appeal the Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of equity and justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vadodara against the assessment order dated 31.08.2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for Assessment Year 2015–16 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara. The assessment order was served upon the assessee on 06.09.2017, whereas the appeal came to be filed on 04.01.2018, resulting in a delay of approximately 90 days beyond the statutory period prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act.

ITA No. 2381/Ahd/2025 Indravadan Bhailalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year –2015-16 - 5– was not condoned by CIT(Appeals) and the appeal was treated as non-est and not admitted. Since the appeal itself was not admitted, the CIT(Appeals) refrained from adjudicating the issues on merits and dismissed the appeal in limine.

Adjudication on Defect of Appeal Fee

ITA No. 2381/Ahd/2025 Indravadan Bhailalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year –2015-16 - 6– held that where the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution or limitation without adjudicating the issues on merits, the appeal fee payable before the Tribunal would be ₹500/- as per section 253(6)(d) of the Act.

On Merits:

ITA No. 2381/Ahd/2025 Indravadan Bhailalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year –2015-16 - 7–

adjudication. The CIT(Appeals) shall re-examine the issue of condonation of delay in accordance with law and thereafter adjudicate the appeal on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA P. SINHA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 06/05/2026 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad