VIMAL HARILAL BALDANIA,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

ITA 770/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 October 2026AY 2017-1812 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vimal Harilal Baldaniya, filed an appeal against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The PCIT had directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to frame the assessment afresh under section 147. The appeal was filed on 13.11.2025, with a delay of 533 days from the prescribed time limit. The assessee expired on 15.01.2026 during the pendency of the appeal. His legal heir, Shri Rajveer Vimal Baldaniya, sought condonation of the delay. The PCIT's order was dated 29.03.2024, and the consequential assessment order under section 147 was passed on 07.03.2025, making an addition of ₹1,48,979/- under section 69A. The original assessment year in dispute is 2017-18.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 533 days in filing the appeal against the PCIT's order under section 263 could not be condoned. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's legal heir provided an explanation for the delay, it did not satisfactorily account for the entire period. The subsequent demise of the assessee did not cure the deficiency in the explanation for the delay that occurred during his lifetime. The Tribunal emphasized that a liberal approach to condonation does not dispense with the requirement of establishing sufficient cause and examining the conduct of the party. The fact that the appeal was filed after the consequential assessment order, without a satisfactory explanation for the delay in challenging the revisional order, was decisive. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 533 days in filing the appeal against the order passed by the Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, deserves to be condoned? Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through his legal heir, argued that the delay was due to bona fide reasons, including seeking professional advice, obtaining a second opinion after the consequential assessment order, and inadvertent circumstances beyond control. The legal heir sought condonation of the delay on merits. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue vehemently opposed the condonation of delay, submitting that the assessee participated in the consequential assessment proceedings but did not challenge the revisional order within the prescribed period. The Revenue argued that the delay was inordinate, extraordinary, and unreasonable, reflecting a deliberate litigation strategy rather than a sufficient cause. They cited the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, arguing that challenging the revisional order after the consequential assessment proceedings would lead to an endless process of litigation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 147,Section 69A,Section 148,Section 144B,Section 115BBE,Section 253(3),Section 282

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 Mehul Thakkar , Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. CIT(DR)
Hearing: 14/10/2026Pronounced: 15/10/2026

Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: The instant appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-1 [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.PCIT”] under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 29.03.2024, whereby the Assessing Officer was directed to frame the assessment afresh in respect of the assessment completed under section 147 of the Act dated 24.03.2022. 02. Brief facts qua the issu

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 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →