Taxpayer cannot be Penalised for Mistake of Previous Tax Consultant: ITAT Grants Relief [Read Order}
When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Rajkot has held that a taxpayer should not be penalised for the mistake of a previous tax consultant. The tribunal, condoned a 104-day delay noting that the consultant failed to communicate the appellate notices served on the consultant’s email which resulted in an ex-parte dismissal and delayed filing of further appeal....
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Rajkot has held that a taxpayer should not be penalised for the mistake of a previous tax consultant.
The tribunal, condoned a 104-day delay noting that the consultant failed to communicate the appellate notices served on the consultant’s email which resulted in an ex-parte dismissal and delayed filing of further appeal.
Jignesh Narendrabhai Mandaliya, challenged the NFAC order dated 27.06.2025. As the appeal before ITAT was filed late by 104 days, the assessee filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay.
The assessee explained that the notices issued under Section 250 and the CIT(A)’s order were served online through the ITBA portal on an email address belonging to his previous tax consultant.
It further stated that the consultant failed to inform him about the hearing notices as well as the final ex-parte appellate order. This caused the delay, submitted the assessee.
The ITAT found merit in the assessee’s explanation and noted that the CIT(A)’s order was served on the earlier consultant who did not inform the assessee in time.
Also Read:Delhi HC Quashes Income Tax Notices against NDTV Founders, Slaps ₹2 Lakh Costs on Department [Read Judgment]
The delay happened mainly due to the consultant’s lapse, and once the assessee discovered the status by accessing the ITBA portal, he promptly initiated steps to file the appeal, said the tribunal.
The bench noted the Supreme Court’s decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, where it was observed that “4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.........”
The bench of Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ( Accountant member) noted that the impugned order was an ex-parte and non-speaking order. It further observed that the CIT(A) had not decided the issues as per Section 250(6).
The appellate tribunal accordingly set aside the order of CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
