NIRANJANBHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

(िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2019-20) बनाम/ Niranjanbhai Shankarbhai Income Tax Officer Patel Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara Vs. Sevasi Ambaji Khadki, Vadodara, Gujarat – 391101 �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : BPAPP4191R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ� ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Pamil H Shah, AR ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01/10/2025 Date of Pronouncement 08/10/2025 (आदेश)/ORDER

PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM:

raised by the assessee are as under:

1. The ld CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the ground of delay and bad in law and therefore requires to be cancelled.

Shankarbhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2019-20 - 2 – 2. The ld CIT(A) has erred confirming penalty U/s 271D of the Act for Rs.13,44,750/- without looking in to the facts of the case of the appellant. It is submitted that penalty be deleted. 3. The ld CIT(A) appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise.”

3. At the outset itself, it was stated that the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) as non-maintainable by not condoning the delay of 23 days in the filing of the appeal. We have noted from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that he had considered the assessee’s explanation for the delay in the filing of the present appeal and had found the same to be incorrect noting that the assessee had explained the delay in filing the appeal against the order passed u/s.147 of the Act, while the order appealed against was passed u/s.271D of the Act. He had also noted that the assessee’s explanation of being hospitalized when the order u/s.147 of the Act was passed did not apply to the order passed u/s.271D of the Act, since, it was passed much later than the order passed u/s.147 of the Act.

4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that it was an inadvertent mistake on his part while explaining the delay before the Ld. CIT(A). He contended that the assessee has reasonable cause for the delay and in any case, the delay was too small. He further pointed out that while noting the assessee’s reasons to be incorrect, the Ld.CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity to the assessee to rectify or clarify its mistake. He further pleaded that the assessee has been levied a penalty of Rs.13,44,750/- u/s.271D of the Act in the present case and if not heard the assessee would Shankarbhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2019-20 - 3 – be greatly prejudiced against. He pleaded restoration of the appeal to the Ld.CIT(A), so as to explain the reasons for the delay and convince the Ld.CIT(A) to entertain the appeal.

5. We are in agreement with the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the delay in the present case was only of 23 days and though admittedly the assessee had furnished a wrong explanation for the delay, yet before dismissing the asessee’s appeal as non- maintainable, the Ld. CIT(A) did not give any opportunity to the assessee to clarify its stand. In the interest of justice therefore, we consider it fit to restore the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) to give the assessee due opportunity to explain the delay and thereafter if considered fit to condone the same and decide the appeal on merits.