MAYUR HIRABHAI MALDHARI,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 210/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 June 2026AY 2015-169 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing a previous decision in a related case where similar delays were condoned due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and mistakes by the tax consultant. The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) with significant delays, which were dismissed without adjudication on merits due to the delay. The assessee attributed the delay to lack of awareness of proceedings and issues with their tax consultant.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the ex-parte and non-speaking orders of the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr.DR
Hearing: 24/03/2026Pronounced: 19/06/2026

आदेश /ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

Captioned four appeals filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2016-17 & 2020-21, are directed against the separate orders 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 06.11.2025, which in turn arise out of assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Act, and penalty orders passed by the assessing officer under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act.

2. Since these four appeals filed by the same assessee and identical and common issues are involved, therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3.

Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), there were delay in filing these appeals, however, the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay in all these appeals. The Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed these appeals in lemini, on account of delay, without adjudicating on merit. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee had explained the reasons for delay before the Ld.CIT(A) stating that assessee was not aware about the proceedings before the assessing officer, and the notices were not served on the assessee. However, when the assessee received penalty notices, then the assessee came to know about passing the order by the assessing officer. Besides, the tax consultant of the assessee did not co-operate and did not file the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), on time, therefore, because of the mistake committed by the tax consultant of the assessee, the assessee should not be penalized. The details of delay in each appeal are mentioned below:

(i) In ITA 204/Rjt/2026, there was delay of 2996 days, penalty u/s 271(1) (C ) (ii) In ITA No. 206/Rjt/2026 there is delay of 2996 days, penalty u/s 271(1) (C ) (iii) In ITA No. 207/Rjt/2026 there is delay of 1035 days, order u/s 144 (iv) In ITA No. 210/Rjt/2026 there is delay of 2774 days, order u/s 144

4.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that above delay in various appeals, are covered by the assessee’s own group case/family case, in ITA No.570 &571/RJT/2025, order dated 16.12.2025, wherein based on

Page 2 of 9

the similar sufficient cause/reason explained by the assessee, the delay was condoned by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot.

5.

On the other hand, Learned DR for the revenue submitted that in this case no "sufficient cause" was shown by the assessee to explain the huge/unreasonable delay in filing of appeal. Rather, this is a clear case of deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the assessee. 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 assessee. Therefore, Learned DR for the Revenue submitted that these appeals should be dismissed on account of delay.

6.

I note that the issue of condonation of delay in the assessee’s case is a squarely covered by assessee’s own family group case, in the case of Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhav (supra), wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Rajkot had condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A), observing as follows:

“6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The assessee submitted before the Bench, copy of letter of revocation of attachment, order and release of immovable property in the case of the assessee, dated 22.10.2025, which is reproduced below:

7.

Revocation of attachment, order in case of co-owner is reproduced below:

8.

Then after, the assessee, wrote a letter dated 08.09.2025, to the Income Tax Officer, to provide him copy of appellate order under section 250 of the Act and assessment orders for assessment years 2011–12 and assessment year 2012–13, the said letter is reproduced below:

9.

From the events narrated above, in the assessee`s case under consideration, it is abundantly clear that delay of 3092 days in filing the appeal, was not on account of negligent approach of the assessee, but due to circumstances beyond his control, as mentioned above. The words "sufficient cause", as appearing in Section 5 of Limitation Act, should receive a liberal construction when the, delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the applicant, in order to advance substantial justice. The words "sufficient cause” for not making the application within the period of limitation" should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In Ramlal, & Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [(1962) 2 SCR 762], it was laid down that in showing sufficient cause to condone the delay, it is not necessary that the applicant has to explain whole of the period between the date of the judgment till the date of filing the appeal. It is sufficient that the applicant would explain the delay caused by the period between the last of the dates of limitation and the date on which the appeal/application is actually filed. What constitute sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard and fast rules. 10. In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Shanti Misra [AIR 1976 SC 237], Supreme Court held that discretion given by Section 5 should not be defined or crystalized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression "sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction. In Inder Singh v. Kanshi Ram (AIR 1917 PC 156] it was observed that true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the assessee acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. From the petition for condonation of delay, reproduced above, we find that a part delay in filing, the appeal has occurred due to mistake committed by the Advocate/CA of the assessee, for which the assessee should not be penalised. Reliance is also 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. 11. We are of the view that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed to act in leisure and make a mockery of enacted law, because law & provisions are laid down to benefit both sides of litigation. Be that as it may, we have to do justice and 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. 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 two appeals. 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, in both these appeal.” 7. I note that the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay filed before ld.CIT(A) were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing these appeals. The assessee submitted separate affidavit for condonation of delay for each appeal before the learned CIT(A), and sufficient cause, explained by the assessee in all these appeals are same and identical. Therefore, having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. I, accordingly, condone the delay in all these appeals.

8.

On merit, I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 of the Act and the impugned orders passed by the ld. CIT(A), are an ex parte orders and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 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. 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. I 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. So far, penalty appeals under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act are concerned, I note that quantum appeals are being restored back to the file of the assessing officer, therefore these penalties do not have any leg to stand, however, during the fresh assessment proceedings, the assessing officer may initiate the penalty in accordance with law. 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. For statistical purposes, these all appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

9.

In the combined result, these appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 19/06/2026.

Sd/- (Dr. Arjun Lal Saini) लेखा सद�/Accountant Member Rajkot Date: 19/06/2026. 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, राजकोट / DR, ITAT, Rajkot  गाड� फाईल/ Guard File  By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar/Sr.P. S/PS ITAT, Rajkot

Page 9 of 9

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →