SHRI DIPAKKUMAR PARSOTAMDAS ASANANI,VILLAGE JETPUR, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (2) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT(A) which was barred by limitation. The assessee requested condonation of delay stating that the appeal was not filed on time due to non-communication from their accountant/advocate regarding notices from the NFAC. The delay was found to be 117 days.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the assessee should not be penalized due to the mistake of their advocate. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee should be condoned and whether the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) should be set aside for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINIBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINIBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,राजकोट�ायपीठ,राजकोट। आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No. 435/RJT/2025 �नधा�रणवष� �नधा�रणवष� /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dipakkumar Parsotamdas Asanani Asanani ITO, NFAC, Delhi Prop. Jay Jalaram Enterprise, M. G. , M. G. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360370 Road, Rajkot - 360001 PAN : AECPA2955G (अपीलाथ�/assessee) : (��यथ�/Respondent) �नधा�रतीक�ओरसे/Assessee by Assessee by : Shri Brijesh Parekh,Ld.AR राज�वक�ओरसे/Revenue by Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. d. Sr. DR
सुनवाईक�तार�ख/Date of Hearing Date of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणाक�तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement Date of Pronouncement : 12/09/2025 ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad/ passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad/ passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad/ National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 17.12.202 .2024 arising in the matter of assessment order passed arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 20 Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-14.
The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation of The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation of 117 days. The 117 days. The assessee has submitted petition for condo assessee has submitted petition for condonation of delay requesting the Bench nation of delay requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The content the delay. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay are of the petition for condonation of delay are reproduced below;
ITA No. 435/RJT/2025 Dipakkumar P. Asanani
“In connection with the above appeal the applicant most humbly and respectfully onnection with the above appeal the applicant most humbly and respectfully onnection with the above appeal the applicant most humbly and respectfully begs to state and submit as under: begs to state and submit as under: 1] The case of the applicant was reopened. The applicant filed the return in response 1] The case of the applicant was reopened. The applicant filed the return in response 1] The case of the applicant was reopened. The applicant filed the return in response thereto. The applicant also replied to the show cause notice thereto. The applicant also replied to the show cause notice. However, the return filed . However, the return filed by the applicant and the reply filed in response to the show cause notice have not by the applicant and the reply filed in response to the show cause notice have not by the applicant and the reply filed in response to the show cause notice have not been considered by the Ld.A.Ο., NFAC, Delhi. been considered by the Ld.A.Ο., NFAC, Delhi. 2] The addition made in the assessment order is the capital gain on the sale of the 2] The addition made in the assessment order is the capital gain on the sale of the 2] The addition made in the assessment order is the capital gain on the sale of the plot at Jetpur. The assessment was reopened for this reason only and the applicant The assessment was reopened for this reason only and the applicant The assessment was reopened for this reason only and the applicant had in the return filed in response to notice u/s.148 offered the capital gain on the had in the return filed in response to notice u/s.148 offered the capital gain on the had in the return filed in response to notice u/s.148 offered the capital gain on the sale of plot to tax adopting its jantri value/value as per Stamp Duty Valuation as the sale of plot to tax adopting its jantri value/value as per Stamp Duty Valuation as the sale of plot to tax adopting its jantri value/value as per Stamp Duty Valuation as the sale price and therefore this issue is not in dispute as the applicant has accepted the herefore this issue is not in dispute as the applicant has accepted the herefore this issue is not in dispute as the applicant has accepted the same. 3] It is submitted that the e 3] It is submitted that the e-mail ID on the portal of the Department was of Sri mail ID on the portal of the Department was of Sri Jitendra Kapadia and he did not Jitendra Kapadia and he did not inform the applicant about the notices from the the applicant about the notices from the National Faceless Appeal Centre and subsequent thereto the appeal order from the Appeal Centre and subsequent thereto the appeal order from the Appeal Centre and subsequent thereto the appeal order from the CIT[A], NFAC, Delhi dismissing the appeal CIT[A], NFAC, Delhi dismissing the appeal and as such the appeal could not be filed and as such the appeal could not be filed within the time before the Honourable ITAT. The date of CIT[A] order is 17/12/2024. within the time before the Honourable ITAT. The date of CIT[A] order is 17/12/2024. within the time before the Honourable ITAT. The date of CIT[A] order is 17/12/2024. However, the fact that the appeal has been dismissed by the Ld.CIT[A], NFAC, Delhi he appeal has been dismissed by the Ld.CIT[A], NFAC, Delhi he appeal has been dismissed by the Ld.CIT[A], NFAC, Delhi came to the knowledge of the applicant in the last week of May came to the knowledge of the applicant in the last week of May-2025 and on coming 2025 and on coming to know the applicant has filed the appeal before the Honourable Bench. The affidavit to know the applicant has filed the appeal before the Honourable Bench. The affidavit to know the applicant has filed the appeal before the Honourable Bench. The affidavit in this regard is enclosed. in this regard is enclosed. Under the above circumstances it is prayed that the delay in filing the appal before Under the above circumstances it is prayed that the delay in filing the appal before Under the above circumstances it is prayed that the delay in filing the appal before the Honourable ITAT, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot may kindly be condoned for which act of the Honourable ITAT, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot may kindly be condoned for which act of the Honourable ITAT, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot may kindly be condoned for which act of kindness the applicant shall ever be grateful kindness the applicant shall ever be grateful”
Learned Counsel for the assessee Counsel for the assessee, argued that in the above petition for ed that in the above petition for condonation of delay, the assessee has explain the reasons for delay and condonation of delay, the assessee has explain the reasons for delay and condonation of delay, the assessee has explain the reasons for delay and sufficient cause for delay, therefore, the sufficient cause for delay, therefore, the delay should be condoned in the delay should be condoned in the interest of justice.
On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue sub 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that assessee has mitted that assessee has failed to explain the sufficient cause, therefore, delay should not be condoned the sufficient cause, therefore, delay should not be condoned the sufficient cause, therefore, delay should not be condoned based on the filmsy reasons, and appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. s, and appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. s, and appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.
I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noted that assessee 5. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noted that ass 5. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noted that ass has provided the email-id of his accountant/advocate. The notices of hearing id of his accountant/advocate. The notices of hearing id of his accountant/advocate. The notices of hearing were delivered on on the the email-id email of his accountant/advocate. accountant/advocate. The accountant/advocate did not inform the assessee accountant/advocate did not inform the assessee about notices of hearing about notices of hearing. The 2
ITA No. 435/RJT/2025 Dipakkumar P. Asanani
assessee came to know when assessee came to know when demand notice was issued by the assessing officer the assessing officer. Thereafter, the assessee took immediate steps to file the appeal before the Thereafter, the assessee took immediate steps to file the appeal before the Thereafter, the assessee took immediate steps to file the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, I note that Therefore, I note that because of mistake of the advocate of the mistake of the advocate of the assessee, the assessee should not be penalised and hen assessee, the assessee should not be penalised and hence in the interest of ce in the interest of justice, I condoned the delay. justice, I condoned the delay. 6. On merit, Ld. Counsel for the assessee 6. On merit, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that assessee submitted entire that assessee submitted entire documents and details before the assessing officer. However, before the Ld. and details before the assessing officer. However, before the Ld. and details before the assessing officer. However, before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee could not submitted required details CIT(A) the assessee could not submitted required details and documents, and documents, during the appellate proceedings as the accountant the appellate proceedings as the accountant/advocate of the assessee did not of the assessee did not corporate, therefore the assessee the assessee could not submitted details and documentary details and documentary evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) and evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) and hence the Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex the Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order. The Ld. Counsel submitted that now the assessee has ready to submit all order. The Ld. Counsel submitted that now the assessee has ready to submit order. The Ld. Counsel submitted that now the assessee has ready to submit the required documents and the required documents and details before the Ld. CIT(A),therefore, therefore, Ld. Counsel prayed that one more opportunity Counsel prayed that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to plead given to the assessee to plead his case before the Ld.CIT(A), and matter (A), and matter may be restored back to the file of the restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The ld. DR for the Revenue . The ld. DR for the Revenue did not raise any objection if the matter any objection if the matter is restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. I note that in the assessee’s note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144 the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.
ITA No. 435/RJT/2025 Dipakkumar P. Asanani
Considering the above facts, Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hen merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of ce it is a violation of principle of natural justice. principle of natural justice. I note that it is settled law that principles of natural t is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without de without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A A)for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and re to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of mit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
10.In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. .In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. .In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on Order is pronounced in the open court on 12/09/2025
Sd/- (DR. A.L. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER EMBER राजकोट/Rajkot (True Copy) िदनांक/ Date : 12/09/2025 Copy of the order forwarded to : The assessee The Respondent CIT The CIT(A) DR, ITAT, RAJKOT Guard File /True copy/ By order
Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot Rajkot 4
