AMISH PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL,PETLAD vs. ITO PETLAD, PETLAD

The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Bhardo (cattle feed) and also a partner in Malhar Developers. The return of income was filed on 30.08.2014, declaring a taxable income of Rs.4,13,470/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2016, determining an assessed income of Rs.65,21,330/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO)

The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) but did not file any written submissions or attend the hearings despite multiple notices. CIT(A) upheld the AO’s findings but granted partial relief. The assessee remained

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal:

It is observed that there was a delay of 378 days in filing the present appeal before the us. The assessee has filed a delay condonation petition, supported by an affidavit, explaining the reasons for the delay. The assessee contended that his tax consultant, Kirtilbhai Ambalal Soni, was handling all tax-related matters but never informed him about the CIT(A) proceedings. Unfortunately, the consultant passed away on 18.02.2024, and only thereafter, upon appointing a new consultant, the assessee came to know about the CIT(A) order dated 17.01.2023. The Departmental Representative (DR) did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay, considering the genuine and bona fide reasons stated in the affidavit.

We have perused the submissions and considered the facts. It is a well- settled principle that while condoning delays, courts should adopt a liberal approach, provided there is no deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the litigant. In the present case, we find that the delay was due to circumstances beyond the assessee’s control, and denying the assessee an opportunity to contest the CIT(A) order on merits would cause grave injustice. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 378 days in filing the present

During the course of hearing before us, the Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee was unaware of the proceedings before CIT(A) due to the reasons explained in the delay condonation petition. The AR requested that the matter be restored to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, as the assessee now wishes to contest the additions on merits.

The Departmental Representative (DR), while pointing out that the assessee was non-compliant before CIT(A), did not object to remanding the matter, considering the genuine reasons submitted in the affidavit. The AR, on behalf of the assessee, undertook to fully cooperate in the fresh

We have considered the submissions of both parties and the material on record. Given that the assessee was deprived of an opportunity to present his case, we find it appropriate to set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore

Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is restored to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate in the appellate proceedings.

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