PRAVEEN RATHORE,UJJAIN vs. ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 24.06.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT(A)-5, Kolkata [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 29.12.2017 passed by learned ITO-1(1), Ujjain [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2015-16, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

days and therefore time-barred. The assessee has filed an application/

affidavit for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced for

an immediate reference:

are self-explanatory and which do not require repetition, were discussed and

the Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection if the bench condones delay and accordingly left it to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the

explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or

material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for

delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act

empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if

there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time.

It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land

Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387

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. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the

provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we

take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with

hearing.

assessee-individual filed return of income of AY 2015-16 declaring a total

income of Rs. 4,25,950/-. The case of assessee was taken for scrutiny and

the AO issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1). Finally, the AO passed

assessment-order u/s 143(3) after making certain additions and

determining total income at Rs. 18,55,550/-. Aggrieved, the assessee caried

matter in first-appeal but could not represent and the CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeal for non-prosecution. Still aggrieved, the assessee has

come in next appeal before us.

passed ex-parte order dismissing assessee’s first appeal in limine, although

due to non-prosecution by assessee on the dates of hearing, but the order

passed by Ld. CIT(A) is against the mandate of section 250(6) which provides:

“The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in

writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and

the reason for the decision”. It is further submitted that the non-prosecution

by assessee was due to the reason that the CIT(A) issued all notices through

e-mail, as noted in Para 4 of impugned order by CIT(A), which remained

unnoticed by assessee. However, the assessee has all relevant details and

documents and ready to make an effective representation before Ld. CIT(A).

He submitted that the assessee does not have non-participative attitude

which is evident from the fact that the assessee made participation before

AO during assessment-proceeding. Ld. AR prayed that in the interest of

justice, one more opportunity be given to assessee by way of restoring this

matter at the level of Ld. CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication. He acknowledged

that the assessee shall definitely make a proper and effective representation

before Ld. CIT(A).

assessee for restoration, submitted that the assessee had remained non-

compliant during the proceedings of first-appeal, which constrained the Ld.

CIT(A) to pass ex-parte order. Further, there is a delay in filing of present

appeal also. It was, therefore, submitted that while restoring the matter,

appropriate directions may be issued to ensure strict compliance by the

assessee including imposition of reasonable cost.

of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be

caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of Ld. CIT(A),

we remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh,

at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) shall give necessary

opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order

uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain

vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by Ld.

CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments failing which the Ld.

CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

before CIT(A) despite as many as 9 opportunities given from

05.03.2020 to 21.06.2024. Further, there is a delay of 469 days in

filing present appeal before ITAT. Hence, in order to offset the

revenue’s efforts in dealing assessee’s case and to make the assessee

more careful in dealing statutory matters, we impose a cost of Rs.

5,000/- to be paid by assessee to Income-tax Department through

appropriate challan. The assessee shall submit a copy of duly paid challan to AO during the proceeding of fresh adjudication and shall not

claim any credit or refund of such payment.

to payment of cost by assessee as mentioned above.

Order pronounced in open court on 17/04/2026

Sd/- Sd/-

(PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Indore

िदनांक/Dated : 17/04/2026

Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 8 of 8