BABUBHAU PUNAMBHAI PARMAR,NADIAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, NADIAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the circumstances explained by the assessee, including being an agriculturist, illiterate, and having a communication gap with the consultant. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessee remained non-compliant during assessment proceedings and failed to furnish substantial evidence regarding the sale of immovable property. To ensure justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to strictly comply with the Assessing Officer's notices and furnish all relevant supporting documents, including bank statements, confirmations, and identity proofs of concerned parties. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard before deciding the issue afresh. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Babubhai Punambhai Parmar, an individual and agriculturist, did not file a return of income for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The assessee sold agricultural land jointly with co-owners for Rs. 7,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer treated the assessee's entire share of the sale consideration as undisclosed short-term capital gain. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) with a delay of 279 days, explaining the delay was due to illiteracy and unfamiliarity with income-tax procedures. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating on merits, as no formal petition for condonation was filed and the explanation was not deemed satisfactory. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal, considering the explanation provided by the assessee. (Question of law and fact, concerning procedural rules of appeal). Assessee's contention: The assessee is an agriculturist, illiterate, and not conversant with income-tax procedures. The delay was due to a communication gap with the consultant and was neither intentional nor deliberate. The delay should be condoned. Revenue's contention: No specific contention recorded in the judgment regarding the condonation of delay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:
- Delay Condoned This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 23.10.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2019- 2020. ITA No.381/AHD/2026, AY-2019-20 Babubhai P Parmar - 2–
The Assessee has raised the following grounds of Appeal:-
The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning delay of 379 days in filing an appeal without appreciating facts and law of the case properly and thereby confirming addition of Rs.12,
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
