DIVYESH MAHESHKUMAR PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

The Lrd. Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the appellant had a reasonable and sufficient caused for not filing the appeal within prescribed time period. The appellant had remained present and co-operated during the penalty proceedings. Due to default on the part of the then consultant, appellant could not filed appeal in time. Therefore, the Lrd. CIT (A) ought to have accepted the delay condonation application and delay of 714 days caused in filing the appeal.

The Lrd. Appellate Authority has grievously erred in law dismissing the appeal filed against the order u/s. 270A of the Income Tax Act wherein the delay was properly explained. Hence, the order passed by the appellate authority deserves to be quashed and set aside.

The opportunity to submit details in the case was not properly given and without giving a chance of personal hearing and to submit more details in support of the case, the order passed is in gross violation of principal of natural justice.

The order passed by the Lrd. CIT (A) is contrary to principle of natural justice and therefore liable to be quashed. The appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable caused u/s. 273B of the Income Tax Act from filing the appeal within statutory time period. The rejection of delay condonation

The Lrd. CIT (A) has erred in law in passing the order is not condoning the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating the genuine and bona fide reasons for the delay of appeal.

The Lrd. AO ought to have condone the delay by verifying the genuine and sufficient cause faced by the appellant for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time period. The dismissing of the appeal by not considering various factual and legal grounds raised by the appellant. Hence, the order passed is highly unjustifiable and unlawful.

The Lrd. Assessing Authority (NFAC) has on facts and on law grievously erred in making the penalty Rs. 2,21,65,966/- u/s. 270A of the Income Tax Act.

The Lrd. Assessing Authority has grievously erred in law in not considering reply and documents submitted by the appellant in right perspective and passed the assessment order by making the penalty of Rs.2,21,65,966/-.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, withdraw or amend any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.

At the outset, ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee brought to our notice that the quantum appeal order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the very same AY 2021-22 in ITA No.2434/AHD/2025 dated 15.05.2026, wherein the Coordinate Bench condoned the delay of 670 days in filing the appeal by imposing the cost of Rs.20,000/- payable by the assessee to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. Consequently, the assessee made the payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- and produced copy of the receipt dated 10.06.2026 which is available at page 98 of the paper book filed by the assessee. The relevant portion of the Coordinate Bench decision reads are as follows:-

In the result, the appeal filed by the asessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Following the above decision of the Coordinate Bench, we hereby condoned the delay of 714 days in filing the appeal filed before ld. CIT(A) by imposing the cost of Rs.10,000/- each payable by the assessee to Prime Minister National Relief Fund within two weeks of receipt of copy of this order. Thus the impugned appellate orders are hereby set aside with the direction to ld. CIT(A) to proceed with the appellate proceedings on production of copy of the receipt of payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- each by the assessee and also giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for 6. statistical purposes. 7. ITA No.397/AHD/2026:- there is no change in the facts of the case, the decision rendered in ITA No.396/AHD/2026 will be applicable mutatis mutandis.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.397/AHD/2026 are also treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the combined result, appeals filed by the Assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.