SHRI DAYABHAI KARSHANBHAI GAREJA, MANGROL, DISTRICT JUNAGADH vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE1, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

Appellant by : Shri Fenil H. Maheta, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. , Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04/09/2025 : 12/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement Date of Pronouncement ORDER Per,Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member: . Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member:

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad/ National by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad/ National by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad/ National & 416/Rjt/2025 Dayabhai K. Gareja Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated [hereinafter referred to as Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated [hereinafter referred to as Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”]16.01.2019 & 25.09.2023 19 & 25.09.2023 arising in the matter of assessment order arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. 144of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the assessment Year 20 ssessment Year 2017-18.

2. Since, the issue involved in these appeals are common and identical the issue involved in these appeals are common and identical, therefore the issue involved in these appeals are common and identical both these appeals are clubbed and heard together and are decided by the these appeals are clubbed and heard together and are decided by the these appeals are clubbed and heard together and are decided by the consolidated order for sake to convenience and brevity for sake to convenience and brevity.

3. The appeal filed by the assessee The appeal filed by the assessee (ITA 416/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017 (ITA 416/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017-18) is barred by limitation by 566 days. The assessee has moved a days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench petition requesting the Bench to condone of delay. The contents of delay. The contents of condonation of delay, are as follows; condonation of delay, are as follows; “1. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant herein has filed appeal. However, a 1. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant herein has filed appeal. However, a 1. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant herein has filed appeal. However, a delay of 567 days has occurred in filing the appeal before your delay of 567 days has occurred in filing the appeal before your honour. Hence, this honour. Hence, this application for the condonation of delay. application for the condonation of delay.

2. The period of limitation for filing the appeal under section 253(3) of the Income Tax 2. The period of limitation for filing the appeal under section 253(3) of the Income Tax 2. The period of limitation for filing the appeal under section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is sixty days of the date of service of the notice of demand. Act, 1961 is sixty days of the date of service of the notice of demand.

3. In the present case order u/s 3. In the present case order u/s 250 of the Act has been served on 25.09.2023 and sixty 250 of the Act has been served on 25.09.2023 and sixty days of the date of service of the order has expired on 24.11 2023. The present appeal is days of the date of service of the order has expired on 24.11 2023. The present appeal is days of the date of service of the order has expired on 24.11 2023. The present appeal is being filed on 13.06.2025 and therefore delay of 567 days has taken place. being filed on 13.06.2025 and therefore delay of 567 days has taken place. being filed on 13.06.2025 and therefore delay of 567 days has taken place.

6. The Accountant Mukeshkumar J Rathod thereafter has not done anything after receipt 6. The Accountant Mukeshkumar J Rathod thereafter has not done anything after receipt 6. The Accountant Mukeshkumar J Rathod thereafter has not done anything after receipt of the appellate order for A.Y.2017 of the appellate order for A.Y.2017-18 despite time of more than 567 days had been 18 despite time of more than 567 days had been elapsed on account of his misbelief that he had handed over the tasks to elapsed on account of his misbelief that he had handed over the tasks to tax consultant elapsed on account of his misbelief that he had handed over the tasks to & 416/Rjt/2025 Dayabhai K. Gareja where as in fact no said task relating to me was handed over by him to any tax where as in fact no said task relating to me was handed over by him to any tax where as in fact no said task relating to me was handed over by him to any tax consultant.

7. Thereafter in June, 2025 the Accountant Mukeshkumar J Rathod has realised his 7. Thereafter in June, 2025 the Accountant Mukeshkumar J Rathod has realised his 7. Thereafter in June, 2025 the Accountant Mukeshkumar J Rathod has realised his mistake and has left the assignment by stating that he was not fit pe mistake and has left the assignment by stating that he was not fit person to person to rson to person to handle and/or assign the assessment, penalty handle and/or assign the assessment, penalty appellate proceedings and advised the ppellate proceedings and advised the Applicant to contact other Chartered accountant or lawyer who can handle said Applicant to contact other Chartered accountant or lawyer who can handle said Applicant to contact other Chartered accountant or lawyer who can handle said proceedings 8. The Applicant thereafter has immediately contacted another con 8. The Applicant thereafter has immediately contacted another consultant for handling sultant for handling the income tax proceedings. The new consultant in June, 2025, after checking the the income tax proceedings. The new consultant in June, 2025, after checking the the income tax proceedings. The new consultant in June, 2025, after checking the proceedings history of the Applicant, has advised to file the Appeal against the order u/s proceedings history of the Applicant, has advised to file the Appeal against the order u/s proceedings history of the Applicant, has advised to file the Appeal against the order u/s 250 of the Act for AY 2017 250 of the Act for AY 2017-18.

10. The Applicant submits that delay in filing the appeals is not deliberate or malafide. It 10. The Applicant submits that delay in filing the appeals is not deliberate or malafide. It 10. The Applicant submits that delay in filing the appeals is not deliberate or malafide. It is further submitted that delay has not is further submitted that delay has not occurred due to negligence or inaction on the part occurred due to negligence or inaction on the part of the Applicant.

11. The Applicant submits that delay in filing the appeals is bonafide and it is settled 11. The Applicant submits that delay in filing the appeals is bonafide and it is settled 11. The Applicant submits that delay in filing the appeals is bonafide and it is settled position of law that where the delay was bonafide and there is sufficient cause for delay position of law that where the delay was bonafide and there is sufficient cause for delay position of law that where the delay was bonafide and there is sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal, the delay must be condoned by the appellate authority specially when it g appeal, the delay must be condoned by the appellate authority specially when it g appeal, the delay must be condoned by the appellate authority specially when it is necessary for rendering the substantial justice to the assessee. is necessary for rendering the substantial justice to the assessee.

12. The Applicant therefore submits that Applicant was prevented by sufficient cause 12. The Applicant therefore submits that Applicant was prevented by sufficient cause 12. The Applicant therefore submits that Applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the limitation period and it has a good case on merits ppeal within the limitation period and it has a good case on merits ppeal within the limitation period and it has a good case on merits and is hopeful to succeed. Hence, there is an appropriate and sufficient reason to and is hopeful to succeed. Hence, there is an appropriate and sufficient reason to and is hopeful to succeed. Hence, there is an appropriate and sufficient reason to condone the delay. 13.From the above facts, it is most respectfully submitted that when substantial justi From the above facts, it is most respectfully submitted that when substantial justice From the above facts, it is most respectfully submitted that when substantial justi and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in justice deserves to be preferred, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in justice deserves to be preferred, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay. It is further submitted that deliberate delay. It is further submitted that the appeal may kindly be decided on merits rather than rejecting the same on the ground of appeal

may kindly be decided on merits rather than rejecting the same on the ground of appeal may kindly be decided on merits rather than rejecting the same on the ground of delay and latches as the cause of substantial justice shall prevail over the technical delay and latches as the cause of substantial justice shall prevail over the technical delay and latches as the cause of substantial justice shall prevail over the technical considerations.

14. The Applicant, therefore, prays that Hon'ble Tribunal be 4. The Applicant, therefore, prays that Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to: a) allow the present application of condonation of delay. a) allow the present application of condonation of delay. b) condone the delay of 567 days occurred in filing the Present Appeal for A.Y.2017 b) condone the delay of 567 days occurred in filing the Present Appeal for A.Y.2017-18 b) condone the delay of 567 days occurred in filing the Present Appeal for A.Y.2017 and to extend the time for filing the same inclusive and up to the date of filing the present and to extend the time for filing the same inclusive and up to the date of filing the present and to extend the time for filing the same inclusive and up to the date of filing the present Appeal.”

& 416/Rjt/2025 Dayabhai K. Gareja 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submit Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that based on the contents ted that based on the contents of the petition for condonation of delay, condonation of delay, as there was mistake of the advocate of the as there was mistake of the advocate of the assessee, the delay of 566 days may be condoned days may be condoned and matter may be restored back and matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer. to the file of the assessing officer.

5. The Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay of 566 566 days and stated that the assessee has failed to days and stated that the assessee has failed to explain the sufficient cause to condone one delay, therefore, delay should not be condoned, and delay, therefore, delay should not be condoned, and the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed. the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed.

6. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and not I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and note that reasons of that reasons of delay explained in the petition for condonation of delay are, convincing and delay explained in the petition for condonation of delay are, convincing and delay explained in the petition for condonation of delay are, convincing and assessee has explained the sufficient cause to condone the delay. The mistake of the sufficient cause to condone the delay. The mistake of the sufficient cause to condone the delay. The mistake of the accountant/advocate of the assessee is a sufficient cause to condone the dela the accountant/advocate of the assessee is a sufficient cause to condone the delay. the accountant/advocate of the assessee is a sufficient cause to condone the dela The assessee should not be penalized because of the mistake committed by his The assessee should not be penalized because of the mistake committed by his The assessee should not be penalized because of the mistake committed by his accountant/advocate. Hence, I condone the delay and admit the appeal of assessee Hence, I condone the delay and admit the appeal of assessee Hence, I condone the delay and admit the appeal of assessee for hearing.

7. The appeal filed by the assessee (ITA 415/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017 The appeal filed by the assessee (ITA 415/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017-18) is barred The appeal filed by the assessee (ITA 415/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017 by limitation by 79 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench limitation by 79 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench limitation by 79 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condonation of delay. The contents ndonation of delay. The contents of the petition condonation of delay, are as condonation of delay, are as follows; “1. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant herein has filed appeal. However, 1. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant herein has filed appeal. However, a 1. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant herein has filed appeal. However, delay of 88 days has occurred in filing the appeal before this Hon'ble ITAT. Hence, this delay of 88 days has occurred in filing the appeal before this Hon'ble ITAT. Hence, this delay of 88 days has occurred in filing the appeal before this Hon'ble ITAT. Hence, this application for the condonation of delay. application for the condonation of delay.

10. The Applicant submits that delay in filing the appeals i 10. The Applicant submits that delay in filing the appeals is not deliberate or malafide. It s not deliberate or malafide. It is further submitted that delay has not occurred due to negligence or inaction on the part is further submitted that delay has not occurred due to negligence or inaction on the part is further submitted that delay has not occurred due to negligence or inaction on the part of the Applicant.

may kindly be decided on merits rather than rejecting the same on the ground of appeal may kindly be decided on merits rather than rejecting the same on the ground of delay and latches as the cause of substantial justice shall prevail over the technical delay and latches as the cause of substantial justice shall prevail over the technical delay and latches as the cause of substantial justice shall prevail over the technical considerations.

14. The Applicant, therefore, prays that Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to:

14. The Applicant, therefore, prays that Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to: a) allow the present application of condonation of delay. a) allow the present application of condonation of delay. b) condone the delay of 88 days occurred in filing the Present Appeal for A.Y.2017 b) condone the delay of 88 days occurred in filing the Present Appeal for A.Y.2017-18 b) condone the delay of 88 days occurred in filing the Present Appeal for A.Y.2017 and to extend the time for and to extend the time for filing the same inclusive and up to the date of filing the present filing the same inclusive and up to the date of filing the present Appeal.”

8. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that based on the . At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that based on the reasons . At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that based on the of delay explained in the petition for condonation of delay, the delay of petition for condonation of delay, the delay of 79 days petition for condonation of delay, the delay of may be condoned and matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing d and matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing d and matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer.

9. The Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay of 79 days and stated that the assessee has failed to days and stated that the assessee has failed to explain the sufficient cause to condone delay, therefore, delay should not be condone, and condone delay, therefore, delay should not be condone, and condone delay, therefore, delay should not be condone, and the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed. the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed.

11. On merit, at the outset, Ld. Counsel t the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that contended that since the assessee is a farmer and he depends on his advocate. The advocate of the assessee advocate of the assessee neither appeared before the assessing officer nor before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore neither appeared before the assessing officer nor before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore neither appeared before the assessing officer nor before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore both the lower authorities have passed ex both the lower authorities have passed ex-parte order. Therefore, Ld. Counsel parte order. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that now the assessee has ready contended that now the assessee has ready to submit all the required details and to submit all the required details and & 416/Rjt/2025 Dayabhai K. Gareja documents and some additional evidences to prove his claim before the Lower documents and some additional evidences to prove his claim before the Lower documents and some additional evidences to prove his claim before the Lower Authorities, therefore, one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to Authorities, therefore, one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to Authorities, therefore, one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the assessing officer. plead his case before the assessing officer.

12. The ld. DR for the Revenue or the Revenue did not raise any objection if the matter remitted did not raise any objection if the matter remitted back to the file of the assessing officer. back to the file of the assessing officer.

13.I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non- -speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.