Trikambhai Karshanbhai Padasala Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, in the case of Trikambhai Karshanbhai Padasala Vs. ITO, has condoned a significant delay of 872 days in filing an appeal. The Tribunal attributed the delay primarily to the unfortunate demise of the taxpayer’s Chartered Accountant (CA) and a mix-up regarding the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO). The ITAT has set aside the ex-parte orders passed by both the AO and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], remitting the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The case originated from an assessment order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on December 24, 2019, for Assessment Year 2017-18, which led to a tax demand of Rs. 8,61,737/-. The assessee initially filed an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/CIT(A), but this appeal was dismissed ex-parte on May 28, 2024. Subsequently, the assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was, at that point, delayed by 216 days from the CIT(A)’s order.
The assessee, Trikambhai Karshanbhai Padasala, through his new legal representative, filed a petition for condonation of delay, outlining the reasons for the inability to adhere to statutory timelines. The primary reason cited was the unexpected death of their tax consultant/Chartered Accountant, Late Hitendrabhai Hargovinddas Sheth, on June 2, 2023. The assessee stated that they were unaware of the proceedings before the CIT(A), which led to an ex-parte order. The email address provided in Form-35 for the CIT(A) proceedings belonged to the deceased CA, and thus, the assessee did not receive timely notifications. The assessee only became aware of the dismissal when an issue letter dated January 27, 2025, was received from the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(4), Rajkot Amreli.
