Shree Jamnagar Jilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot)
A Communication Gap Should Not Become a Barrier to Justice
Two Delays Condoned, One Opportunity Restored
The Rajkot Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned a 38-day delay before the CIT(A) and an 18-day delay before the Tribunal, accepting the explanation that both delays arose mainly from a communication gap between the assessee and its tax consultant.
The CIT(A) had dismissed the first appeal on limitation without examining the dispute on merits. After finding the explanation convincing and sufficient, the Tribunal set aside the appellate order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication through a speaking order, after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The assessee also received liberty to produce further evidence in support of its claim. However, the Tribunal did not decide the underlying tax dispute. The relief secured was restoration of the appellate remedy.
The Procedural Background
The appeal concerned AY 2018–19. The AO had completed the assessment under section 143(3) on 3 March 2021.
The assessee challenged that assessment before the CIT(A), but the appeal was filed 38 days late. By an order dated 3 February 2026, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of the delay.
The assessee then approached the Tribunal. This appeal, too, was delayed—this time by 18 days. Consequently, before the substantive dispute could receive consideration, the assessee had to seek condonation at both appellate stages.
The order does not describe the particular addition, deduction or exemption involved in the assessment. Its findings are confined to condonation of delay, opportunity of hearing and restoration of the appeal.
The Explanation: A Gap in Communication
The assessee’s authorised representative relied on an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. He submitted that the delays before both authorities occurred mainly because of a communication gap between the assessee and its tax consultant.
He requested that the relatively short delays be condoned in the interests of justice. He also sought restoration of the matter to the CIT(A), stating that the assessee wished to submit additional documents and evidence to establish its claim.
The Revenue’s representative did not object to condonation of either delay or to remand for fresh adjudication.
Nevertheless, the Tribunal did not rest its conclusion merely on the absence of opposition. It examined the affidavit and the condonation application and recorded its own satisfaction regarding the explanation.
A Convincing Explanation Established Sufficient Cause
The Tribunal found that the reasons furnished in the affidavit were convincing and constituted reasonable and sufficient cause for the delayed filing.
It accordingly condoned both the 38-day delay before the CIT(A) and the 18-day delay before the Tribunal.
The finding is significant because the relief followed an assessment of the explanation placed on record. The decision should therefore be understood as acceptance of the particular circumstances established in this case. It does not suggest that mentioning a communication gap, without explaining or supporting it, necessarily requires condonation.
Equally, the Tribunal’s description of the delays as minor was part of the factual context. Its express finding of sufficient cause remained the basis for admitting the appeals despite the delay.
The Appeal Required Consideration on Merits
Having condoned the delays, the Tribunal examined whether the assessee had received a proper opportunity to present its case.
It observed that the assessee had not been afforded sufficient opportunity before the CIT(A) and that the appellate authority had not discussed the dispute on merits using the material available before it.
The Tribunal invoked the principles of natural justice and fair play, which require an affected party to receive sufficient opportunity to contest its case.
Without entering into the substantive issues, it set aside the CIT(A)’s order and directed de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was required to hear the assessee and pass a speaking order. The assessee was permitted to furnish further evidence and was directed to pursue its case promptly.
The appeal was thus allowed for statistical purposes.
Author’s Comments
The practical value of this decision lies in restoring a hearing where a satisfactorily explained delay had prevented examination of the dispute. An appellate remedy should not be lost through a communication failure when the explanation establishes sufficient cause.
For practitioners, the affidavit deserves particular attention. A useful condonation application should explain the sequence of events and the circumstances that prevented timely filing. A supported explanation carries more weight than a routine assertion that the consultant and client failed to communicate.
The outcome must also be stated accurately. The Tribunal restored the appeal; it did not allow the underlying claim. The assessee must now substantiate that claim before the CIT(A), using the opportunity to furnish additional evidence.
The direction to participate promptly is equally relevant. Once an appellate forum grants another opportunity, timely and complete compliance becomes essential.
The case illustrates a measured approach: accept the established explanation for delay, restore the hearing and leave the merits for a reasoned decision. A communication gap need not end the appeal, but its correction must lead to effective participation in the proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RAJKOT
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2018-19, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAC) Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 03.02.2026, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 03.03.2021.
2. When the matter was called for hearing, the Learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the appeal has been filed by the assessee belatedly before the Tribunal by 18 days. The learned Counsel adverted my attention to the affidavit filed in this regard citing reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign
view and sought condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that there was also delay before the Ld. CIT(A) of 38 days, in filing the appeal, therefore, learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, on account of delay. The learned Counsel submitted that minor delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) may be condoned and matter may be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, as the assessee wants to submit additional documents and evidences to prove his claim.
4. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal as well as, delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) were mainly occurred due to communication gap between assessee and his tax consultant. Therefore, these minor delays before Tribunal and before Ld. CIT(A), in filing the appeals, may be condoned in the interest of justice.
5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue did not raise any objection, if such minor delay before the Ld. CIT(A), and before Tribunal, are condoned and then matter may be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
6. I have heard, both the parties. 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 appeal before CIT(A) and Tribunal. 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 before ld.CIT(A), 38 days and before Tribunal 18 days.
7. On merit of the case, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the Ld. CIT(A). I note that the Ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. I note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. I hold and direct accordingly. The Ld. CIT(A) will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to substantiate its case. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open Court on 30/09/2026.
