VIR MOKHADAJI GOHIL SEVA CHARITABLE TRUST,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

ITA 736/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 October 2026AY 2018-194 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 1,817 days. The assessee's explanation for the delay, attributing it to non-receipt of communication from the CPC and ignorance of appeal filing procedures, was not considered satisfactory. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had continued to file returns for subsequent assessment years, which did not support the claim of complete ignorance. Since the assessee failed to establish a sufficient cause for the inordinate delay, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. Consequently, the grounds relating to the merits of the intimation under Section 143(1) were not adjudicated. The ratio decidendi is that an inordinate delay in filing an appeal requires a cogent and satisfactory explanation, and procedural technicalities, when not adequately addressed by the assessee, can lead to dismissal without a decision on merits. The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vir Mokhadaji Gohil Seva Charitable Trust, filed an appeal before the Addl/JCIT Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad, against an intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1,817 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, citing non-receipt of demand communication from the CPC and ignorance of appeal filing procedures. The Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay, finding the explanation unsatisfactory, and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 1,817 days in filing the appeal, turning on the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contentions: The delay occurred due to bonafide reasons, lack of technical knowledge, and non-receipt of communication from the CPC. Matters should be decided on merits rather than technicalities, and substantial justice should prevail over procedural lapses. The appeal was dismissed without adjudicating on merits, depriving the appellant of the opportunity to contest additions made in the intimation under Section 143(1). Revenue's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-

For Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR

Hearing: 21.10.2026Pronounced: 28.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT ITA No. 736/AHD/2026 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Vir Mokhadaji Gohil Seva Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Charitable Trust, Exemption, Khadarpar, Bhavnagar. Lakhanka, Talaja, Bhavnagar-364140. [PAN : AABTV4563 G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : None Respondent represented by: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21.10.2026 Date of Pronouncement 28.10.2026

O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the Addl/JCIT Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2019-2019.

ITA No.736/AHD/2026, AY-2018-19 Vir Mokhadaji Gohil Seva Charitable Trust - 2– 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of Appeal:-

The learned Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2. Hyderabad has erred in law and on facts in passing the Appellate order dated 13.01.2026 which is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The 1 learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay of 1817 days in filing the appeal without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the genuine reasons explained by the appellant. It is totally wrong. unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The learned AddI/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2. Hyderabad failed to appreciate that the delay occurred due to bonafide reasons and lack of technical knowledge, and there was no intention on the part of the appellant to deliberately delay the 2 filing of the appeal. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the courts have consistently held that matters should be decided on merits rather than on technicalities, and that substantial justice should prevail over procedural lapses. It is totally wrong. unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 3. The learned Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad has erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the issues on merits, thereby depriving the appellant of the opportunity to contest the additions made in the intimation issued u/s 143(1), the CPC has erred in computing the income of the trust at Rs.33,03,379 and raising demand of Rs. 10,59,844, which is incorrect and contrary to the provisions of law.. It is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 4. The learned AddI/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad has erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay and without granting reasonable opportunity to the appellant to substantiate the cause of delay, which is against the principles of natural justice. It is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend OR withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.

The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). However, the appeal was filed with a delay of 1,817 days. The assessee sought condonation of the delay on the grounds that no

ITA No.736/AHD/2026, AY-2018-19 Vir Mokhadaji Gohil Seva Charitable Trust - 3– communication regarding the demand was received from the CPC and that the delay occurred due to ignorance of the procedure for filing an appeal.

The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the explanation furnished by the assessee, observed that the reasons stated did not satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay. It was further noted that the assessee had continued to file returns of income for subsequent assessment years. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the grounds on merits.

Considered the grounds of appeal and the material available on record. The main issue is whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 1,817 days in filing the appeal. The assessee attributed the delay to non-receipt of communication from the CPC and ignorance of the appeal filing procedure. However, no satisfactory explanation was furnished to justify such an inordinate delay.

5.1 None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing before us. It is, therefore, decided to proceed the appeal on the basis of the material available on record. As the assessee has failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the grounds relating to the merits of the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act are not adjudicated.

ITA No.736/AHD/2026, AY-2018-19 Vir Mokhadaji Gohil Seva Charitable Trust - 4– 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

The order pronounced in the open Court on 28.10.2026. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- 8 Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 28.10.2026 Digitally signed by JEETENDRA MV DEVENDRABHAI UPADHYAY JEETENDRA DN: c=IN, o=PERSONAL, title=6087, 2.5.4.20=7e5568a89b633f174b2 DEVENDRA 8a80f5e63c638da40b7313fb47e baefda841cf59d1703, आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : postalCode=380059, st=Gujarat, BHAI serialNumber=816dc56e896211 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant a1a21ccc4abc94ddc94458f4a1b 37be8e1854e9399295106d4, UPADHYAY 2. ��थ�/ The Respondent. cn=JEETENDRA DEVENDRABHAI UPADHYAY 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु�/ Concerned CIT Date: 2026.10.30 16:11:26 4. आयकरआयु�(अपील) /The CIT(A)- +05'30' 5. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड�फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →