SHRI PRS FAMILY TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1.1.1, VEJAPUR

ITA 734/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 September 2026AY 2021-226 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, PRS Family Trust, filed two appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Years (AY) 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. The appeals challenged orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which dismissed the assessee's appeals in limine due to delays. For AY 2020-2021, the delay was 466 days, and for AY 2021-2022, it was 143 days. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals against Intimation Orders passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the delays were caused by the prolonged illness and surgery of their chartered accountant, who exclusively handled their tax matters. The ITAT considered medical reports supporting this claim.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeals within the prescribed statutory period due to the prolonged illness and surgery of their chartered accountant, supported by medical reports. Consequently, the ITAT overturned the CIT(A)'s orders, condoned the delays of 466 days for AY 2020-2021 and 143 days for AY 2021-2022, and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the substantive issues on merits. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals solely on limitation without deciding the merits. For AY 2020-2021, Ground No. 1/1.0 (regarding condonation of delay) was allowed, while grounds dealing with merits (2 to 3) were disposed of as allowed for statistical purposes without findings. For AY 2021-2022, the same directions were applied. The ratio is that significant medical incapacitation of a key professional handling tax matters can constitute sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals, warranting condonation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before him, and if sufficient cause existed for the delay, as per the assessee's submissions, turning on the provisions related to condonation of delay under the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether the Intimation Orders passed under Section 143(1) were bad in law, and if the tax liability was computed correctly by the Assessing Officer, considering the assessee's claim that it is a discretionary trust falling under proviso ii to Section 164(1) and thus tax should be computed at individual rates as per Schedule I of the Finance Act, 2021. Assessee's Arguments: - The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was due to sufficient cause, specifically the medical incapacitation of their chartered accountant. - The Intimation Orders were bad in law as they were passed without affording an opportunity of being heard and the computation of tax did not fall under Section 143(1). - The tax liability was wrongly computed by the Assessing Officer; as a discretionary trust, tax should be levied at individual rates. Revenue's Arguments: - The judgment records no specific arguments from the Revenue regarding the condonation of delay or the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 164(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

These are two appeals preferred by the same Assessee-Trust for the Assessment Year 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. Since the appeals involved identical issues, the same were taken up together and are being disposed off by way of a common order.

2.

The common grievance of the Assessee in both the appeals is that the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 466 days and 143 days in appeal for Assessment Year 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, respectively.

3.

We would first take up ITA No.706/AHD/2026 preferr

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 164(1)

All 70 judgments and leading authorities on Section 164(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →