Kamlesh Ranchhodbhai Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Summary: The two appeals were filed by the assessee against two separate first-appellate orders dated 22.08.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, arising from respective assessment orders dated 04.12.2018 and 11.12.2019 passed by the ITO, Ward-2(2)(4), Surat. The appeals were filed with a stated delay of 734 days.
The assessee explained the delay by stating that his father was suffering from the ailments mentioned in the supplied application and was unable to follow up with the income-tax practitioner, who also did not make compliances before the lower authorities. The assessee stated that he was not residing with his father due to business-related commitments and educational issues concerning his children and was therefore unaware that assessment and appellate proceedings were continuing. His father expired on 17.06.2025. Thereafter, upon receiving recovery notices at his father’s residential address, the assessee became aware of the non-compliances and appointed CA. Akshay Mitishkumar Modi of Mitish S. Modi & Co., Surat on 25.10.2025 to attend to the matter.
The assessee submitted that his newly appointed tax consultant informed him that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals and, on the consultant’s advice, appeals were immediately filed before the ITAT, Surat Bench, Surat. It was prayed that the delay of 734 days be condoned on the ground that it was unintentional, bona fide and caused by genuine and sufficient circumstances.
The learned AR further submitted that the orders of both lower authorities were ex-parte due to non-representation by the deceased assessee. Reliance was placed on Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339, in support of adopting a justice-oriented approach where substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed.
The Tribunal, considering the averments in the condonation application, condoned the filing delays in the appeals. Having regard to the nature of the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the principle of natural justice and the Tribunal’s view that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer, the matters were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with the necessary opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by the earlier orders. The assessee was also directed to remain vigilant and participate in hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments, failing which the Assessing Officer could proceed in accordance with law. The appeals were consequently allowed for statistical purposes.
Condonation of 734-Day Delay
The assessee sought condonation of a 734-day delay in filing the appeals. The explanation placed before the Tribunal referred to the circumstances surrounding the assessee’s father, the non-compliances by the tax consultant, the assessee’s lack of awareness regarding the proceedings and the subsequent discovery of the appellate dismissal after recovery notices were received.
The assessee submitted that the delay was unintentional and bona fide and arose from genuine and sufficient cause. The Tribunal accepted the request for condonation of the filing delays after considering the averments made in the application.
Reliance on Substantial Justice
The learned AR relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387, and the decision in Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339.
The submission was that when substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, substantial justice should be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal thereafter condoned the filing delays in the present appeals.
Ex-Parte Proceedings and Natural Justice
The learned AR submitted that the orders passed by both lower authorities were ex-parte because of non-representation by the deceased assessee.
The Tribunal, having regard to the nature of the additions made by the Assessing Officer and the principle of natural justice, considered it appropriate to restore the matters to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also observed that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue by restoring the matters at the level of the Assessing Officer.
Matters Restored to Assessing Officer
The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with the necessary opportunity of hearing and to pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by the earlier orders.
The assessee was directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in hearings fixed by the Assessing Officer without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal stated that, in case of failure to participate as directed, the Assessing Officer would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
Final Decision
The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes after condoning the filing delays and restoring the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The order was pronounced in open court on 29/06/2026.
Cases Discussed
- Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others — Supreme Court, 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387
- Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh — Supreme Court, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The captioned two (2) appeals have been filed by assessee challenging two (2) separate orders of first-appeal, both dated 22.08.2023 and passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders dated 04.12.2018 and 11.12.2019 passed by learned ITO, Ward-2(2)(4), Surat [“Ld. AO”] u/s (delusions or hallucinations or Alzheimer’s disease) and hence, my father was not able to take the follow up before the ITP and the ITP has not made any compliances before the lower authorities. Further, I was also not staying with my father due to my business-related commitment and educational issues of my children, therefore, I was also not aware about the assessment and appellate proceedings are ongoing in my father’s case. Further, my father got expired on 17-06-2025. After his death, when I have received the notices of recovery on my father’s residential address, I was got aware about the non-compliances made by the ITP. As soon as, I got aware about the non-compliances and I have appointed CA. Akshay Mitishkumar Modi of Mitish S. Modi & Co., Surat on 25-10-2025 to file the appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT, Surat to look into the appeal filed before CIT(A).
(4) That, at that time it is come to the notice of the newly appointed tax consultant (CA) that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal. Therefore, with the advice of tax consultant (CA), I have immediately filed an appeal before the ITAT, Surat Bench, Surat.
(5) That the delay in filing appeal is unintentional, bonafide and the appellant was prevented from the above explained genuine, real, and sufficient cause.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the delay of 734 days in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned so that substantial justice may be done.
5. Ld. AR thereafter submitted that considering the averments made in above application, the filing-delay may be condoned. Further, the orders passed by both of the lower authorities are ex-parte for non-representation by deceased assessee. That, in the first AY 2011-12, the Ld. AO has made Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 holding that whenever “substantial justice” and “technical considerations” are opposed to each other, the cause of “substantial justice” must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach, we are inclined to condone the filing delays in present appeals.
8. Further, having regard to nature of additions made by Ld. AO, the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matters are restored at the level of Ld. AO, we restore these matters to the file of Ld. AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The Ld. AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by his earlier orders. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by Ld. AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments failing which the Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
9. Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 29/06/2026
