SANGAM INFRACOM,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1068/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 October 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without addressing the merits. While ordinarily, the matter would be restored to the CIT(A), the Tribunal observed that documents filed in the paper book had not been presented to the AO. The Tribunal reasoned that the AO would need to examine these documents for a remand report, and since the AO had not had an opportunity to examine the relevant documents for determining the assessee's income, it was deemed fit to set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after the assessee submits all relevant documents and evidence. The assessee was directed to diligently pursue the matter with the AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sangam Infracom, a partnership firm, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, dated 13.09.2026, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) added the entire sale consideration of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- from an immovable property as Long Term Capital Gains due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices issued under Section 148 and Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was filed belatedly by 7 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on grounds of limitation and lack of diligence, without considering an application for condonation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee for non-receipt of effective communication and the minimal nature of the delay, thereby allowing adjudication on the merits of the case, as per Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was due to practical communication difficulties, including no one being available at the registered address to receive communications and infrequent use of the email address by a partner with limited formal education. They emphasized that the delay was not intentional or mala fide, citing Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) for a liberal, justice-oriented consideration of the minimal 7-day delay. They sought an opportunity to present facts and get the appropriate income assessed, requesting the matter be set aside to the AO for fresh consideration. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the Revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH

Before: Shri Tapas Ram Misra & Shri R. Govindarajan

For Appellant: Shri Harish Gamara, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. DR

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before Shri Tapas Ram Misra, Judicial Member And Shri R. Govindarajan, Accountant Member ITA No. 1068/Ahd/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Sangam Infracom Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1)(1) Ahmedabad C-06, Radhakrishna Vs Appartment, Aayakar Bhawan, Ashram Thakkarbapanagar, Road, Near Income Tax Ahmedabad-382350, Circle, Shreyas Colony, Gujarat Navrangpura Ahmedabad-380059, PAN: ADEFS7309B Gujarat (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Harish Gamara, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 29-10-2026 Date of pronouncement : 30-10-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER TAPAS RAM MISRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 13.09.2026 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19.

2.

The Assessee is a partnership firm. During the relevant previous year, the assessee had sold an immovable property for a total consideration of Rs.1,15,00,000/-. The assessing officer added the entire sale consideration as Long Term Capital Gains for the reason that the assessee did not comply with the various notices issued u/s 148 and section 142(1) of the Act.

3.

The assessee filed an appeal against the said assessment before the CIT(A). The appeal was filed belatedly after a delay of 7 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine for the reason that the appeal was barred by limitation and the assessee had not been diligent in pursuing the appeal, not even filing an application for condonation.

4.

Aggrieved by the said order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. In the written submission filed by the assessee, the following reasons have been pointed out for the delay:

“2. Reason for non-receipt of effective communication 2.1 The appellant respectfully submits that, although the firm is registered at its stated principal place of business, no person is presently available at that place to regularly receive and attend to communications. Consequently, communications delivered or attempted at that address may not have come promptly to the attention of the responsible partner. 2.2 Further, the email address of partner Mr. Varun Parbatbhai Bhimani had been entered by the tax consultant for electronic communications The said partner has limited formal education and uses that email account only infrequently As a result, he did not effectively notice or understand the electronic communication concerning the assessment order and the consequential need to take timely appellate action 2.3 The appellant submits that the above circumstances were not intentional or a device to delay the proceedings. The appellant did not deliberately abandon its right of appeal The failure to act within the prescribed period arose from the practical communication difficulties described above The appellant regrets that no separate application explaining the delay was filed before the learned CIT(A) and respectfully requests that the explanation now be considered in the interest of substantial justice 3. The delay is only seven days and deserves a liberal, justice- oriented consideration 3.1 The delay involved is only 7 days. It is minimal and the appellant seeks no advantage from it. The dismissal of the appeal solely on this short delay has prevented adjudication of substantial issues including the validity of reassessment proceedings and the treatment of the entire sale consideration as taxable capital gain 3.2 The appellant relies on the principle that procedural requirements should be applied in a manner that advances substantial justice where a bona fide explanation is available and no deliberate delay or mala fide conduct is established. Reliance is placed on Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), subject to the facts and applicable law. 3.3 The appellant undertakes to remain vigilant and comply with future notices and directions.”

5.

Before us, Ld. A.R. Shri Harish Gamara pleaded that the assessee was prevented by sufficient circumstances from attending to hearing before the assessing officer and also for the delay of a mere 7 days in filing appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. A.R. pleaded that the right to appeal is a valuable right and the assessee has pursued its right by filing an appeal not only before the CIT(A) but also before the Tribunal. The Ld. A.R. has submitted that the assessee has suffered taxation of Long Term Capital Gains with reference to the entire sale consideration and prayed for an opportunity to present the relevant facts and get the appropriate income assessed.

6.

The Ld. A.R. prayed for the matter to be set aside to the assessing officer for fresh consideration with reference to all the relevant facts and documents.

7.

We have heard both the parties including the Ld. Sr. DR. We notice that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without dealing with the merits of the case. Ordinarily in a case like this, we would be inclined to restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) to consider the issue afresh. However in the present case, we have seen that the documents filed in the paper book submitted before us have not been presented to the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A) will in any case be constrained to send the documents back to the assessing officer for a remand report. Since the A.O. did not have an opportunity to examine the documents relevant to determination of income of the assessee, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the assessing officer to be decided afresh with reference to the evidence to be submitted by the assessee and in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to diligently pursue the matter with the assessing officer and submit all the relevant documents and evidence that it seeks to rely upon.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

This Order is pronounced on 30/10/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (R. GOVINDARAJAN) (TAPAS RAM MISRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : True Copy Dated 30/10/2026 Rajesh आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 4 Digitally signed by JEETENDRA 1. Assessee JEETENDRA DEVENDRABHAI UPADHYAY DN: c=IN, o=PERSONAL, title=6087, 2. Revenue 2.5.4.20=7e5568a89b633f174b28a8 DEVENDRA 0f5e63c638da40b7313fb47ebaefda 3. Concerned CIT 841cf59d1703, postalCode=380059, st=Gujarat, BHAI 4. CIT (A) serialNumber=816dc56e896211a1a 21ccc4abc94ddc94458f4a1b37be8e 1854e9399295106d4, 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad UPADHYAY cn=JEETENDRA DEVENDRABHAI UPADHYAY 6. Guard file. Date: 2026.10.30 17:12:06 +05'30' By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →