Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed as time-barred, having been filed on 28.11.2024 against an order dated 26.03.2023. The assessee argued for condonation of delay citing illiteracy, non-physical service of the order, and late awareness of the e-filing portal, which the CIT(A) deemed insufficient.
Held
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents and comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's claims of illiteracy and lack of awareness of e-filing.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 249(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
(Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dilipbhai Ishwarbhai Harijan, Income Tax Officer, Vs. F-29, Shakti Nagar Society, Ward 4(1)(7), Undera, Vadodara-391330 Vadodara [PAN : AKCPH 9589 F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri A.C. Brahmakshatriya, CA Respondent represented by: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR Date of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2018-19.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. That, in law, the impugned appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appellate Centre (NFAC), New Delhi is against natural justice, bad in law. It is, therefore, deserved to be annulled.
2. That, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not condoning the delay as the appellant is illiterate and the order was not served to him physically. The appellant registered on E-filling Portal after receipt of letter from ITO (I & CI) only. Earlier to it, he was not aware of the proceedings on e-filling portal. Your honour is, therefore, requested to restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) with direction to condone the delay and decide on merits of the case.
3. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as time-barred as it was filed on 28.11.2024 against the order dated 26.03.2023, beyond the period prescribed under Section 249(2) of the Act, noting that the explanation for delay provided by the assessee that “the order and notices were allegedly served at an old address” was insufficient. We further note that the assessee remained non- Dilipbhai Ishwarbhai Harijan Vs. ITO Asst.Year : 2018-19 - 2– compliant before the Assessing Officer and failed to furnish documentary evidence regarding immovable property transactions and interest income.
4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that if given an opportunity, all necessary details, supporting documents, clarifications and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement / submission/document before the Assessing Officer and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 17.02.2026
Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 17.02.2026 **btk आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent. 2. संबंिधतआयकरआयु�/ Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकरआयु�(अपील) /The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड�फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation … ……..17.01.2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member ….17.01.2026 3. Other Member…17.01.2026 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S……17.01.2026 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement……...17.01.2026 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S…...17.01.2026 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk …...17.01.2026 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………...
9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order……………………………………
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dilipbhai Ishwarbhai Harijan, Income Tax Officer, Vs. F-29, Shakti Nagar Society, Ward 4(1)(7), Undera, Vadodara-391330 Vadodara [PAN : AKCPH 9589 F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri A.C. Brahmakshatriya, CA Respondent represented by: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR Date of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2018-19.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. That, in law, the impugned appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appellate Centre (NFAC), New Delhi is against natural justice, bad in law. It is, therefore, deserved to be annulled.
2. That, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not condoning the delay as the appellant is illiterate and the order was not served to him physically. The appellant registered on E-filling Portal after receipt of letter from ITO (I & CI) only. Earlier to it, he was not aware of the proceedings on e-filling portal. Your honour is, therefore, requested to restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) with direction to condone the delay and decide on merits of the case.
3. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as time-barred as it was filed on 28.11.2024 against the order dated 26.03.2023, beyond the period prescribed under Section 249(2) of the Act, noting that the explanation for delay provided by the assessee that “the order and notices were allegedly served at an old address” was insufficient. We further note that the assessee remained non- Dilipbhai Ishwarbhai Harijan Vs. ITO Asst.Year : 2018-19 - 2– compliant before the Assessing Officer and failed to furnish documentary evidence regarding immovable property transactions and interest income.
4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that if given an opportunity, all necessary details, supporting documents, clarifications and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement / submission/document before the Assessing Officer and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 17.02.2026
Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 17.02.2026 **btk आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent. 2. संबंिधतआयकरआयु�/ Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकरआयु�(अपील) /The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड�फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation … ……..17.01.2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member ….17.01.2026 3. Other Member…17.01.2026 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S……17.01.2026 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement……...17.01.2026 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S…...17.01.2026 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk …...17.01.2026 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………...
The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order……………………………………
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dilipbhai Ishwarbhai Harijan, Income Tax Officer, Vs. F-29, Shakti Nagar Society, Ward 4(1)(7), Undera, Vadodara-391330 Vadodara [PAN : AKCPH 9589 F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri A.C. Brahmakshatriya, CA Respondent represented by: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR Date of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2018-19.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. That, in law, the impugned appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appellate Centre (NFAC), New Delhi is against natural justice, bad in law. It is, therefore, deserved to be annulled.
2. That, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not condoning the delay as the appellant is illiterate and the order was not served to him physically. The appellant registered on E-filling Portal after receipt of letter from ITO (I & CI) only. Earlier to it, he was not aware of the proceedings on e-filling portal. Your honour is, therefore, requested to restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) with direction to condone the delay and decide on merits of the case.
3. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as time-barred as it was filed on 28.11.2024 against the order dated 26.03.2023, beyond the period prescribed under Section 249(2) of the Act, noting that the explanation for delay provided by the assessee that “the order and notices were allegedly served at an old address” was insufficient. We further note that the assessee remained non- Dilipbhai Ishwarbhai Harijan Vs. ITO Asst.Year : 2018-19 - 2– compliant before the Assessing Officer and failed to furnish documentary evidence regarding immovable property transactions and interest income.
4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that if given an opportunity, all necessary details, supporting documents, clarifications and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement / submission/document before the Assessing Officer and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 17.02.2026