RESHMA DILIP RAMRAKHYANI,GANDHIDHAM vs. ITO WARD 2 GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

ITA 895/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 September 2026AY 2014-1518 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Reshma Dilip Ramrakhyani, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal was filed with a delay of 387 days. The assessee sought condonation of the delay, citing her husband's severe illness, including a diagnosis of tongue cancer, major surgery, and subsequent treatment, which required her to be his primary caregiver. The revenue contended that the delay was unreasonable and due to deliberate inaction or negligence. The ITAT considered the facts and the documentary evidence presented by the assessee regarding her husband's medical condition.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 387 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal held that the expression 'sufficient cause' should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice, especially in the absence of mala fide intention. The medical emergency in the assessee's family, involving cancer, major surgery, and ongoing treatment, was considered a sufficient cause. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) and the Madras High Court's decision in Mrs. Kamala Lakshmi Narayan v. ITO, emphasizing that the cause for delay, not merely its length, is crucial. The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained a sufficient cause for the delay. Subsequently, the Tribunal addressed the grounds of appeal, specifically the addition of Rs. 5,82,956/- on account of the difference in jantri rates under section 56(2)(vii)(b). The Tribunal deleted this addition, following the principle of equality and consistency with the assessment of co-owners of the same property, citing decisions of the Madras High Court in ICT vs. Kumararani Meenakshi Achi and a co-ordinate bench in Chetanbhai Prahladbhai Gami vs. ITO. The Tribunal noted that similar Long Term Capital Gains were accepted in the co-owner's cases. The addition was also deleted based on the peculiar facts and smallness of the amounts involved, not laying down general propositions of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 387 days in filing the appeal by the assessee can be condoned on the grounds of sufficient cause, specifically, the medical emergency faced by her husband? (Question of fact and law, relying on Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that her husband's severe illness, including cancer diagnosis, surgery, and ongoing treatment, constituted a sufficient cause for the delay. She was preoccupied with his care, making timely filing impossible. Documentary evidence was submitted to support this claim. The delay was neither intentional nor due to negligence. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that no 'sufficient cause' was demonstrated for the unreasonable delay. They asserted it was a case of deliberate inaction or negligence and that the law favors vigilant assessees, not those who sleep on their rights. Therefore, the delay should not be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 55A,Section 274,Section 271(1)(c),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 143(1),Section 142(1),Section 48

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 Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Genesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 07/07/2026

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM : Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2014-15, 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 26.09.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 21.12.2016. ITA No. 895/Rjt/2025 [ AY 2014-15 ] Reshma Dilip R

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 56(2)(vii)(b)

All 624 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →