##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील स.ं /ITA No.1094/SRT/2024

Assessment Year: (2011-12)

(Hybrid hearing)

Hanumanta Surapra Karnali, Vs. ITO,

J-218, Pahar Falia, Bhamanvel, Ward – 2,

Tal – Chikhli, Dist – Navsari, Navsari

Gujarat - 396402

èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AOIPK2214A

(अपीलाथ(cid:334)/Appellant) ((cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334) /Respondent)

Appellant by Shri Uday Nanavati, CA

Respondent by Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR with Shri Kevin

Langaliya, CA

Date of Hearing 25/11/2025

Date of Pronouncement 26/12/2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), dated 27.08.2024 by the

learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre,

Delhi [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2011-12.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the claim of assessing regarding delay

in presenting appeal.

2. All the Grounds of Appeal prayed before CIT(A) remains unchanged as the

Learned CIT(A) has rejected the appeal without going into any merits of the

appeal.

3. It is therefore prayed that the rectification application filed by the assessee

should be allowed and claim of assessee regarding depreciation on plant &

ITA No.1094/SRT/2024/AY.2011-12

Hanumanta Surapra Karnali

machinery which was not allowed by mistake while processing ITR should be

allowed.

4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in

the course of hearing of the appeal.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the business of

construction work with the help of heavy earth moving machinery, mostly in

remote rural area. The assessee had also earned income from other sources during

the year under consideration. The assessee filed his return of income for the year

under consideration, i.e., AY 2011-12 on 10.11.2011, declaring a total income of

Rs.3,89,518/-. An intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 16.01.2012 was received

by the assessee with demand of Rs.88,580/- due to disallowance of depreciation

on plant and machinery block. The assessee had claimed depreciation of

Rs.3,49,268/- in original return but CPC, while processing ITR, had allowed

depreciation of Rs.Nil, resulting into addition of income to the tune of

Rs.3,54,441/-.

4. The assessee, thereafter, filed appeal before the CIT(A) on 03.01.2024.

Besides an application for rectification was also filed by the assessee on

23.04.2024. During the appellate proceedings, notices were issued on 01.08.2024

and 20.08.2024. In compliance, assessee furnished his submissions and replies

wherein the assessee submitted reasons for delay in filing of appeal along with

supporting evidences and also requested for condonation of delay of 12 years in

filing the appeal. The CIT(A) rejected the application of the assessee for

2

ITA No.1094/SRT/2024/AY.2011-12

Hanumanta Surapra Karnali

condonation of delay and accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the assessee

without going into merits of the case.

5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed present appeal before the

Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted

a paper book containing written submission, CIT(A) order, ITR, computation of

income, intimation by CPC, submission of rectification request, intimation by CPC

for earlier years. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) erred in

rejecting the application of the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the

appeal as the delay was caused by genuine and unavoidable circumstances

without deliberate and malafide intention. The ld. AR further stated that the

assessee stays in a small village near Navsari District of Gujarat where there is no

availability of knowledgeable tax consultant, therefore, he had to depen