BHAVINI JAGDEVBHAI SOLANKI,RAJKOT vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH(SMC), RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, Account Member आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 363/RJT/2026 (�नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: (2019-20) Bhavini Jagdevbhai Solanki ITO Ward 2(2)(1), Rajkot Block No E/9, Mahavir Park,,Nr Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ring Vs. Nirmala Convent School, Sojitra Nagar Road, Rajkot, Gujarat, 360001., Main Rd, Rajkot 360007, Gujarat India Rajkot Gujarat 360001 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: DVLPS4590E (अपीलाथ�/Assessee) (��यथ�/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26/03/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06/05/2026

ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2019- 20, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 14.01.2026, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, on 27.03.2024. 2. Learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee was barred by limitation by 2 days before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has explained the sufficient cause before Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay, however, Ld. CIT(A)

ITA No. 363/Rjt/2026 Bhavini J. Solanki did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee, on account of delay observing as follows: “On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the position of law applicable on the given facts, as the condonation of delay is not sought by the appellant, I am satisfied that the appeal has not been presented within the period prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act, i.e. thirty days from the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment order. I am also satisfied that the appellant has not been able to show any "sufficient cause" for not presenting the appeal within the said prescribed period, within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act, read with section 5 of The Limitation Act. Accordingly, the appeal is not admitted for adjudication on merits.” 3. The Ld. Counsel stated that there was communication gap between assessee and advocate, hence delay of 2 days has resulted, which may be condoned. Since the assessee has explained sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), therefore, I condone the delay of 2 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 4. On merit, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending 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. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the Ld. first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee. 5. The ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld. Counsel.

ITA No. 363/Rjt/2026 Bhavini J. Solanki 6. I note 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. 7. I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not 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. The Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. 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. 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. It is needless to say that the assessee will be at liberty to adduce any evidences as deemed relevant before the assessing officer at the time of assessment, proceedings in consequence to this order and the Assessing Officer shall, allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being, heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order which is fair and judicious.

ITA No. 363/Rjt/2026 Bhavini J. Solanki 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 06/05/2026.

Sd/-

Dr. Arjun Lal Saini (Accountant Member) राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 06/05/2026

Copy of the order forwarded to :  The assessee  The Respondent  CIT  The CIT(A)  DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  Guard File /True copy/ By order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot