HARPALSINH PRUTHVISINH GOHIL,HARPALNIVAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(5), RAJKOT

Appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 is barred by limitation by 176 days. The assessee has moved a petition for condonation of delay requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, has explained the delay stating that the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the learned CIT(A) was passed on 09/12/2024, but the same was not received by the Appellant on the email address provided Page | 2 -Rjt-2025 Harpalsinh Pruthvisinh Gohil in Form 35 or any other email address registered on E-portal of Income Tax, nor was any physical copy delivered. That the Appellant came to know about the said order only when Jurisdictional Assessing Officer communicated outstanding demand on 23.07.2025 u/s 250 of Income Tax Act in response to which tax consultant discovered the order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal on Income Tax Eportal website. Copy of email is attached for reference. That upon becoming aware of the said order, the Appellant immediately took steps to obtain a copy downloaded from Income Tax E-portal website to file the appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal, and therefore delay has occurred in filing the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but solely due to non- receipt of the order and lack of any communication from the Department at the time of passing of the said order. Based on these facts, Ld. Counsel contended that delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.

On the basis of the facts narrated in the contents of the petition for condonation of delay, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has explained the sufficient cause for delay, therefore, the delay should be condoned.

On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the delay should not be condoned on such flimsy grounds, therefore, appeal of the assessee should be dismissed.

I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and perused the materials available on record. I note that notices were not delivered on the assessee and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was also not received by the assessee, on time. When the assessee received the demand notice from the Income Tax Department, then the assessee came to know about passing the Page | 3 -Rjt-2025 Harpalsinh Pruthvisinh Gohil order of the Ld. CIT(A). A perusal of the affidavit gives me an impression of existing of mitigation circumstances to enable me to exercise my discretion in favour of assessee. Therefore, based on these facts and circumstances, I note that the assessee has explained the sufficient cause to condone the delay, therefore, I condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for hearing.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset argued that in the assessee’s case the assessment order was framed on 04.12.2019. However, the assessee has filed the valuation report of the registered valuer after the assessment order is framed by the assessing officer. The valuation date of the Valuer’s Report is dated 30.11.2020. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee has obtained the valuation report from the Registered Valuer very late and it was not available before the assessing officer, therefore, the matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the assessee has placed reliance on the valuation report dated 30.11.2020. The Bench cannot adjudicate the issue based on the valuation report of the Registered Valuer of the assessee dated 30.11.2020 as the said valuation report was not available with the assessing officer. Therefore, opportunity should be given to the assessing officer to examine the valuation report of the Registered Valuer of the assessee. The Ld. DR also submitted that the assessing officer may also refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer also before adjudicating the assessee’s issue. Therefore, Ld. DR contended that the matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer for afresh adjudication.

I have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. I note that the valuation report of the Registered Valuer submitted before the Bench is dated 30.11.2020. However, the assessing officer framed the assessment order on 04.12.2019, therefore, I note that this valuation report of the Registered Valuer was not available before the assessing officer to adjudicate the assessee’s issue. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench that the entire issue should be adjudicated based on the assessee’s valuation report obtained by the assessee from the Registered Valuer. Since, the valuation report of the Registered Valuer dated 30.11.2020 was not available before the assessing officer, therefore, I am of the view that an opportunity should be given to the assessing officer to examine the valuation report of the Registered Valuer and adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. The assessee may also submit other relevant documents and evidences to prove his claim before the assessing officer.

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