BHAVESHKUMAR MAHENDRABHAI MANIYAR,JUNAGADH vs. THE ITO WARD-1, JUNAGADH., JUNAGADH
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order which upheld the AO's assessment order. The appeal was delayed by 249 days due to the assessee's earlier consultant failing to communicate the CIT(A) order. The assessee had declared total income of Rs.6,66,460/- and during a search, unaccounted on-money payment of Rs.28,00,000/- for an immovable property was treated as income.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 249 days, noting that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, subject to a cost of Rs.2,000/-.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and ITAT is condonable, and if the matter should be adjudicated on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 253(3), 250, 69A, 115BBE, 271AAC, 132, 133A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH
Before: SHRI DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTAT MEMBER & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA
आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2019-20, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the NFAC’), Delhi, dated 06.08.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 13.03.2024.
The appeal filed by assessee is barred by limitation of 249 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) filed an application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit of the assessee where it is
ITA.234/RJT/2025/AY.2019-20 Bhaveshkumar Mahendrabhai Maniyar submitted that the order of CIT(A) was issued on email of ‘bvchande11@gmail.com”, which pertained to his earlier consultant. The consultant did not communicate about the issuance of order, and he was totally unaware about the order of CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act. It is further submitted that the said e-mail id was also provided in Form 35. Subsequently, demand notice issued by AO, Junagadh and stated that since the case of CIT(A) was passed on 06.08.2024, there was outstanding demand of Rs.36,88,800/-, which needs to be paid by the appellant. The said notice was issued to the e-mail id mentioned in Form 35 and the earlier consultant had not informed in time. Thereafter, assessee approached to a new consultant for present the case before the Tribunal. He submitted that all required documents were sent to the counsel appearing to Tribunal, who prepared the appeal memo, papers, signatures and payment of appeal fees. He, however, submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate on his part. After getting information, he immediately filed appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, the ld. AR requested to condone the delay in filing before ITAT.
On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submitted that the reasons given by the appellant are general in nature and appellant has not established sufficient cause for not filing appeal in time.
We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue of delay of 249 days. The appellant has stated that the e-mail id was given to his earlier counsel, who has not communicated with him properly. He was not aware of the tax matter. He came to know about the order
ITA.234/RJT/2025/AY.2019-20 Bhaveshkumar Mahendrabhai Maniyar only when recovery notice was sent to her earlier consultant. Hence, impugned delay has occurred. We find that the reasons given by the appellant are general in nature without proper elaboration. The expression "sufficient cause" used in section 253(5) of the Act is sufficiently elastic to enable the Tribunal to apply the law which subserves the ends of justice. It has been held in a number of cases that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Hence, we condone the delay of 249 days and admit the appeal for hearing.
Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee had e-filed on 24.09.2019, declaring total income of Rs.6,66,460/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act named ‘operation blue diamond’ was conducted on 24.08.2021 in case of real estate builders of Rajkot. Four different groups were covered in the operation including the R K Group of Rajkot and engaged in the business of real estate in Rajkot. Out of 43 premises, 32 were covered u/s 132 of the At and other 11 premises were covered u/s 133A of the Act. The premises covered were mix of residential and business premises of their related entities, their family members, key associates and employees. The AO observed that the assessee has booked immovable property in the project ‘Trinity Towers’ for which on-money of Rs.28,00,000/- has been paid during the year under consideration. The assessee has refrained himself to explain the sources of on-money payment, therefore, unaccounted on-money payment of Rs.28,00,000/- was treated as income in the hands of the assessee as unexplained money
ITA.234/RJT/2025/AY.2019-20 Bhaveshkumar Mahendrabhai Maniyar u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. The AO made addition of Rs.28,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. The total income was determined at Rs.34,66,460/- against the returned income of Res.6,66,460/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the delay in filling appeal. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before us. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that an opportunity may be given to the assessee to represent his case before CIT(A). The ld. AR submitted that the delay before the CIT(A) and ITAT was neither intentional nor deliberate. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee provide sufficient cause to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.
On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the order of CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay of 70 days and dismissed the appeal without discussing the appeal on merit. We have already condoned the delay of 249 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal by the assessee in para 4 of this order. Therefore, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to pass fresh order u/s 250 of the Act in
ITA.234/RJT/2025/AY.2019-20 Bhaveshkumar Mahendrabhai Maniyar accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits subject to the cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to be credited to the “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund”. The assessee is directed to be more vigilant and diligent and to furnish all the details and explanations before the CIT(A) as and when required. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced on 29/08/2025 in the open court.
Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A. L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER 9t Rajkot (True Copy) �दनांक/ Date: 29/08/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order
Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot
