BADIANI PRATAP JETHALAL (HUF),JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD 2(2), JAMNAGAR
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 was filed with a delay of 311 days. The delay was attributed to the death of the main Karta of the HUF and the subsequent karta's engagement in attending to his parents' medical needs. The assessee sought condonation of the delay, supported by a death certificate.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons provided to be convincing and constituting a reasonable cause. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was valid due to violation of natural justice principles.
Sections Cited
144, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM.
ITA NO. 44/RJT/2025 BADIANI PRATAP JETHALAL
IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATETRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH(SMC), RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM. आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.44/RJT/2025 �नधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Badiani Pratap Jethalal Vs. The Income Tax Oficer, 1st Floor, Morden Market, Pandit Ward-2(2) Nehru Marg, Jamnagar-361110 Near Ambar Cinema, Jamnagar-361008 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.:AABHB4073P (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Om S. Modi, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (DR) Date of Hearing : 13/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. ARJUNLAL SAINI AM;
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18, is directed against the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), vide order dated 02/01/2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer, dated 11/12/2019, u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The appeal filed by the assessee, for Assessment Year 2017-18, is barred by limitation by 311 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. Learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons for delay stating that main Karta of the HUF was died and the subsequent karta of the HUF was engaged in the treatment of father and mother, therefore, appeal
ITA NO. 44/RJT/2025 BADIANI PRATAP JETHALAL
could not be filed on time. The assessee submitted the death certificate. Therefore, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the interest of justice the delay should be condoned. On the other hand, Learned DR for the revenue, opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay and stated that on such filmse grounds the delay should not be condoned.
3.I have heard the parties on this preliminary issue. I note that the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. I, accordingly, condone the delay.
At the outset Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) fixed the cases for hearing on 09.02.2021 by issuing notice on 25.01.2021. However, thereafter the Ld. CIT(A) issued further notices. However, since none appeared on behalf of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) was pleased to pass an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine. According to the Ld. Counsel none of the notices were served upon the assessee and in the absence of receipt of notices, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee could not comply by attending for hearing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The learned Counsel submitted that the impugned order was passed thus without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and therefore there was violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, according to Ld. Counsel, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is fragile in the eyes of law. Moreover, learned CIT(A) did not decide the matter on merit and as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act.
ITA NO. 44/RJT/2025 BADIANI PRATAP JETHALAL
The ld. DR for the revenue as well assessee did not have objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer. However, learned DR for the revenue, submitted that on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, a cost of Rs.5000/- should be imposed on the assessee, therefore, I impose a cost of Rs.5000/-, on the assessee, which is to be deposited in the Prime Minister national relief fund. Accordingly, the assessee has deposited cost of Rs.5000/- into the Prime Minister national fund and furnished the receipt before the Bench.
I have heard both the parties, and considering the above facts and in the interest of justice and fair play for both the parties, I set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, and to decide the matter in accordance to law after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated to be allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24 / 04 /2025.
Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot (True Copy) �दनांक/ Date:24 /04 /2025
Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order
Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot
