MANMOHANBHAI JAMNADAS DOMADIYA,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JUNAGADH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 252/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and was caused by a technical issue with the email communication and the ex-parte nature of the lower authorities' orders. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order violated the principles of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunity for hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed beyond the limitation period by 52 days. The delay was attributed to the appellant's agriculturist background, semi-literacy, and lack of familiarity with e-proceedings, leading to notices being sent to an incorrect email address of a former consultant. The assessee claimed ignorance of the proceedings and the appellate order.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities violated the principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Hearing: 15/05/2025Pronounced: 16/05/2025

आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant  ��यथ�/ The Respondent  आयकर आयु�/ CIT  आयकर आयु�(अपील)/ The CIT(A)  िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  गाड�फाईल/ Guard File

// True Copy // By order/आदेश से,

सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, राजकोट

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →