KRISHNA GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY,PORBANDAR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE 1 (1), RAJKOT , RAJKOT

ITA 468/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 October 2026AY 2015-167 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Krishna Ginning and Pressing Factory, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the order of the CIT(A) dated 10.06.2024, which upheld an addition of Rs.34,02,040/-. This addition was made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the Stamp Duty Value (SDV) of a property. The assessee contended that the SDV of Rs.3,41,02,040/- was higher than the actual sale consideration of Rs.3,07,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer had referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) but completed the assessment before receiving the report. The DVO's report, received later, determined the property value at Rs.3,08,15,700/-. The appeal before the Tribunal was filed 580 days after the CIT(A)'s order.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 580 days in filing the appeal, adopting a liberal and pragmatic approach, citing Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court precedents that emphasize deciding appeals on merits rather than technicalities, especially when the delay is not attributable to mala fide or gross negligence. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the Valuation Report dated 15.11.2021 was submitted as additional evidence and had not been examined by the CIT(A). Since the valuation report involved factual aspects requiring examination and verification by the Assessing Officer, including the basis and methodology, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A). This was done to afford a reasonable opportunity to the Revenue to examine and rebut the additional evidence. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for adjudication afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee was treated as allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 580 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation of a bona fide belief that their tax consultant was handling all procedural aspects and the subsequent discovery that crucial evidence was not presented to the CIT(A)? - Assessee's contention: The delay was due to the tax consultant's oversight and a bona fide belief that all records were being properly handled. They relied on the principle of liberal approach in condoning delays, citing Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court judgments. - Revenue's contention: The delay should not be condoned due to the assessee's failure to effectively pursue the appeal before the CIT(A) and the mistake of the tax consultant. 2. Whether the Valuation Report dated 15.11.2021, which was not examined by the CIT(A), should be admitted as additional evidence, and if so, how it impacts the addition made under section 50C? - Assessee's contention: The DVO's valuation of Rs.3,08,15,700/- is only 0.38% higher than the sale consideration of Rs.3,07,00,000/-, which is within a reasonable tolerance limit, and therefore the appeal should be allowed. - Revenue's contention: The additional evidence was not examined by the CIT(A), and therefore the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) for examination and a remand report from the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 250,Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot.

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Abiram Kartikeyan S., Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 22/07/2026Pronounced: 05/10/2026

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2015- 16, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 10.06.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143 (3), r.w.s. 263 of the Act, on 27.09.2021. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by

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 263

All 13,474 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →