RAMESHBHAI HARDASBHAI DHORIANI,MORBI, GUJARAT vs. ITO WARD 1, MORBI, MORBI, GUJARAT

ITA 167/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 September 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, finding the reasons in the assessee's affidavit to be convincing and constituting a sufficient cause. The Tribunal also condoned the delay of 409 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), opining that the assessee should not be penalized for the mistake of their tax consultant, citing judicial precedents that advocate for a liberal and pragmatic approach in condoning delays, especially when there is no malafide or negligence. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessment was carried out under section 144 and the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was ex-parte and non-speaking. Considering this, and that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard, violating the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with directions to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who was also permitted to submit further evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rameshbhai Hardasbhai Dhoriani, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)] dated 30.11.2025, which arose from an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under sections 144 read with 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 18.04.2023. The assessee admitted a delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT and a delay of 409 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee attributed the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) to a mistake by their tax consultant. The revenue opposed the condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the reasons provided in the assessee's affidavit. 2. Whether the delay of 409 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) should be condoned, given that it was attributed to the tax consultant's mistake. 3. Whether the ex-parte and non-speaking order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) violates the principles of natural justice and warrants a de novo adjudication. Assessee's Contentions: - The delay of 10 days before the ITAT should be condoned due to mitigating circumstances. - The delay of 409 days before the Ld. CIT(A) should be condoned as the assessee should not be penalized for the mistake of their tax consultant. Reliance was placed on the ITAT, Kolkata Bench decision in M/s. Garg Bros. Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. DCIT and the Supreme Court's decision in Investment Trust v. Ujagarsingh, and Gujarat High Court's decision in Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. - The assessee could not represent their case before the Ld. CIT(A), and the order being ex-parte and non-speaking vitiated the proceedings due to a violation of the principle of natural justice. The assessee sought another opportunity to contest the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue opposed the prayer for condonation of delay before the ITAT. - The revenue contended that such a huge delay should not be condoned solely on account of the tax consultant's mistake.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 30/07/2026

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2017-18, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAC) Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 30.11.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144, r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 18.04.2

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →