RAJENDRAKUMAR THAKORBHAI PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO WARD-4, NAVSARI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1413/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 June 2026AY 2011-129 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, citing the principle of substantial justice and the fact that the assessee should not be penalized for the mistakes of their tax consultant. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication due to an ex-parte and non-speaking order from the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals before the ITAT were filed with significant delays, both before the ITAT and the CIT(A). The delays were attributed to the assessee's tax consultant's errors, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the assessee being a non-resident.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals should be condoned, and whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to a violation of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 14/05/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत �यायपीठ, सूरत । In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Surat Bench, Surat Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1412 & 1413/Srt/2025 �नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rajendrakumar Thakorbhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer, 11, Sadakpor, Sadakpor, Kanbivad, Ward-4, Navsari. Chikhli, Navsari, Gujarat-396445, Vs. Room No. 203, Swapnalok Society, Nr. Kaliwadi Bridge, Navsari, Gujarat-395001, �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ATYPP3005D (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri P M Jagasheth, AR Respondent by : Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 14/05/2026 : 01/06/2026 Date of Pronouncement

ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned two appeals filed by the same assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12, are directed against the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”), which in turn arise out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 144/147 of the Act, and a penalty order passed by the assessing officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2. The assessee’s appeal in ITA No.1412/SRT/2025 (quantum appeal) for assessment year (AY) 2011-12 is barred by limitation by 53 days and assessee’s appeal in ITA No.1413/SRT/2025 (penalty appeal) u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year (AY) 2011-12, is also barred by limitation by 23 days. The assessee moved a petition for condonation of delay in these two appeals. The reasons for delay stated by the assessee in the petition for condonation of delay are common and identical, that is, same reasons for delay. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, I condone the delay, in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, in both these appeals.

3.

The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is also delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority, that is, before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel pointed out that in the case of ITA No.1412/SRT/2025 for assessment year (AY) 2011-12, there was a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for 2337 days, like-wise, there was delay in filing the appeal in appeal ITA No.1413/SRT/2025 for 2149 days, before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee’s appeal in ITA No.1412/SRT/2025 for assessment year (AY) 2011-12 is quantum appeal and assessee’s appeal in ITA No.1413/SRT/2025 for AY 2011-12 is penalty appeal u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, both the appeals pertains to same assessee and the Ld. Counsel submitted a chart showing computation of delay in filing both these appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), by narrating the relevant facts and sufficient cause, which are reproduced below (in quantum appeal):

4.

Learned Counsel for the assessee, in the case of ITA No.1412/SRT/2025 for assessment year (AY) 2011-12, (in penalty appeal) has submitted a chart showing sufficient cause, which is reproduced below:

5. The Ld. Counsel submitted that in these two appeals, delay are mainly in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was due to Covid-2019 Pandemic, that is, most of delay was Covid-2019 Pandemic, and also Post Covid –19, the peoples were working with safety standards. The sufficient cause explained by the assessee, in both the appeals are same and identical. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that after COVID-19 pandemic, the tax consultant of the assessee did not file these appeals, on time, before Ld. CIT(A), because the tax consultant of the assessee, was very old, and he was also working with safety standards. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel submitted that because of the mistake of the tax consultant of the assessee, the assessee should not be penalised. Since, the sufficient cause for delay in filing both appeals are similar and identical, as both the appeals pertain to the same assessee, therefore, delay should be condoned in filing the appeals before learned CIT(A).In addition to this, Ld. Counsel also submitted another reason of delay stating that since, the assessee is non-resident and he was mainly dependent on tax- consultant, for this purpose. The Ld. Counsel also submitted the relevant copy of the Passport and date of arrival in India and the date of departure from India of the assessee, in a chart, which is, reproduced below:

Page 4 of 9

6. Therefore, Ld. Counsel submitted that since the assessee, being a non- resident (an NRI), the relevant notices of assessing officer, during the assessment proceedings, were also not served on the assessee. In addition to this, the Ld. Counsel also submitted that whenever assessee came to know about the ex-part order of the assessing officer, he took immediate steps to file the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that such huge delay in filing both these appeals should not be condoned, as the assessee failed to prove sufficient cause. 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 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 filing these appeals before learned CIT(A).

8.

I have heard, both the parties. I note that because of mistake of the tax consultant the assessee should not be penalised. For that, 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.

9.

On professional advice, I 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 may humbly submit that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has also considered this 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." 10. I further note that another reason of delay in filing these appeals, is that assessee is an NRI, (non-resident) and notices were not served on him, therefore, delay has occurred in filing these appeals.

11.

I also find that a part delay in filing these appeals before the learned CIT (A) was on account of COVID-19 pandemic, and such delay is explained by the assessee in the above chart, hence, delay on account of COVID-19 pandemic,

Page 6 of 9

should be condoned, as per the mandatory direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

12.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji and others , reported in 167 ITR 471, (1988 SC 897) (7) observes ....

“4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.” When we weigh these two aspects then the side of justice becomes heavier and casts a duty on us to deliver justice. I, therefore, condone the delay in filing both appeals before Ld. CIT(A).

13.

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, submitted that assessee wants to submit documentary evidences to prove his claim before the assessing officer, therefore, these appeals should be restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.

14.

On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue did not raise any objection, if the matter is restored back to the file of the assessing officer.

15.

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. I note that in the assessee’s

Page 7 of 9

case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144/147 the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex-prate order and non- speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Considering the above facts, 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. 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.

16.

I make it clear that assessee’s appeal in ITA No.1413/SRT/2025, for assessment year (AY) 2011-12 is the penalty appeal u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, such penalty does not have any leg to stand, as the quantum appeal of the assessee, for assessment year 2011–12, is being restored back to the file of the assessing officer, therefore, I delete the penalty.

17.

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. For statistical purposes, both appeals of the assessee are treated, as allowed.

18.

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 01/06/2026.

Sd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member Surat Date: 01/06/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to :  The assessee  The Respondent  CIT  The CIT(A)  DR, ITAT, Surat  By order Guard File //True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Surat

Page 9 of 9

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →