LATE SMT. CHAMPABEN HARILAL SHAH, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI VINODCHANDRA HARILAL SHAH,ANAND vs. ITO WARD 1, GANDHIDHAM , GANDHIDHAM

ITA 922/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 September 2026AY 2012-136 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 758 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) should be condoned. The Tribunal noted that the assessee should not be penalized for mistakes committed by their tax consultant/advocate, citing precedents like M/s. Garg Bros. Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. DCIT. It also referred to the Supreme Court's view in Investment Trust v. Ujagarsingh and Gujarat High Court's decision in Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., emphasizing a liberal and pragmatic approach to condonation of delay to avoid defeating substantive rights on technicalities. The Tribunal found the reasons provided in the affidavit for the delay to be convincing and constituting a reasonable cause. On the issue of the ex-parte order, the Tribunal observed that the assessment was carried out under section 144 and the Ld.CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh on merits, with directions to afford the assessee an opportunity of being heard and to allow them to produce further evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Late Smt. Champaben Harilal Shah, through her legal heir Shri Vinodchandra Harilal Shah, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, for Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeal was against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)) dated 18.05.2026. This order arose from an ex-parte assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 28.11.2019. The assessee's appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was filed belatedly by 758 days, which led to its dismissal on grounds of delay without adjudication on merits. The assessee attributed the delay to the mistake of their advocate.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 758 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) should be condoned, turning on the interpretation of reasonable cause for delay under the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) vitiated the proceedings on account of violation of the principle of natural justice, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay of 758 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was due to a mistake by their advocate, and therefore, the delay should be condoned. They relied on the decisions in M/s. Garg Bros. Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. DCIT and Investment Trust v. Ujagarsingh, emphasizing a liberal and pragmatic approach to condoning delay. The assessee also contended that the Ld.CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and violated the principle of natural justice, as they could not represent their case, and sought an opportunity to contest the appeal before the AO. They cited Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. for the principle of not defeating substantive rights on technicalities. Revenue's contentions: The learned DR for the revenue opposed the prayer for condonation of delay, stating the appeal should be dismissed on that ground. However, the learned DR did not raise any objection if the matter was restored back to the file of the assessing officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 30/07/2026Pronounced: 25/09/2026

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2012-13, 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 18.05.2026, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the As

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →