DILIPKUMAR SHYAMLAL MURJANI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1562/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 October 2025AY 2016-174 pages

AI SummaryN/A

Facts

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, which dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable due to a delay of 2284 days, without condoning the delay. The assessee contended that the delay was due to not receiving the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act and subsequently pursuing the matter through mails and appeals to the PMO on the CPGRAM portal. The underlying dispute was an addition of Rs. 30 Lakhs under the head 'capital gains' in the intimation without considering the cost of acquisition and indexation.

Held

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing and found that there appeared to be a genuine reason for the assessee's delay in filing the appeal, supported by evidence of pursuing the intimation. It also observed that the capital gain addition was made without the benefit of indexation of cost of acquisition and without assigning any reason. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate both the maintainability and the merits of the appeal.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal due to delay without condoning it and without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing, and whether the matter should be remanded for adjudication on merits regarding capital gains addition.

Sections Cited

Section 250, Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, AR, Shri Rajiv Garg, Sr.DR

For Respondent: Shri Rajiv Garg, Sr.DR

Hearing: 29/09/2025Pronounced: 08/10/2025

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT (A)-7, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 11.06.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. The Lrd. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay and refusing to condone the same, without appreciating that the delay was due to genuine and sufficient cause beyond the control of the Appellant, and further erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits, thereby upholding an incorrect addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- under the head 'Capital Gains made in the Intimation u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act without considering the cost of acquisition of the asset.”

The solitary grievance of the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is in not entertaining the assessee’s appeal, dismissing it as non-maintainable by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal before him. The assessee’s appeal was delayed in filing before the Ld. CIT(A) by 2284 days. The assessee had explained the reason for the delay as having not received intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act. The said intimation was given only after many mails and appeal addressed to the PMO on CPGRAM portal. The assessee had contended that in the intimation made u/s.143(1) of the Act, addition was made under the head ‘capital gain’ of Rs.30 Lakhs though no gain was earned by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A), we have noted, held that there was no sufficient cause adduced by the assessee in filing the appeal with a delay of 2284 days. The assessee’s reason for the delay as waiting for action on the response filed by the assessee, Shyamlal Murjani vs. ITO] A.Y. 2016-17 - 3 – he stated, was not a valid reason and the assessee ought to have taken timely action.