Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for being filed out of time, with a delay of 122 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to the previous tax consultant not communicating notices or the assessment order. The CIT(A) allegedly dismissed the appeal without providing an opportunity to explain the delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned subject to the payment of costs.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without affording the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth
Year : 2018-19 Shailendra Vijaykumar Patel The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 1-228 Shivam Ward 5 v/s. Magan Desai Chal Navsari 396 445 Opp. S.T. Depo Navsari 396 445 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AKNPP 7586 K (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT(DR) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 10/01/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal of Shailendra Vijaykumar Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 2 the assessee by holding the appeal filed as invalid & not maintainable being filed out of time.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law F on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 6,72,00,000/- as short term capital gain without considering the fact that appellant is only the power of attorney holder and has received consideration of ₹ 48,00,000/-only.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in passing order u/s144 of the IT Act 1961 without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee.
4. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted.
5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”
3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, has invited our attention to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to submit that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that there was a delay of 122 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). He has, further, brought our attention to appeal Form 35 to show that the assessee has duly mentioned the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) at Sl.No.15 of the Form 35, wherein, it was explained that the tax consultant of the assessee neither complied with the notices issued by the AO nor communicated the same to the assessee. Even he did not communicate the passing of the impugned assessment order. That the assessee came to know about the passing of the assessment order only when he received the tax-recovery notice in physical mode from the Jurisdictional AO. The assessee, thereafter, appointed a new tax consultant and filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not give any opportunity to the assessee Shailendra Vijaykumar Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 3 even to explain the aforesaid reasons for delay and summarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding the same as barred by limitation. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that assessee has a fair case on merits and that he may be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A).
4. Considering the rival submissions, in our view, the interests of justice will be well-served if the assessee be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A), however, subject to payment of reasonable costs which we assess at Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, it is directed that the assessee will deposit a cost of Rs.10,000/- in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund and will furnish the evidence of such deposit before the Ld. CIT(A). Subject to fulfilment of aforesaid condition, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside, the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby condoned and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.