Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT which was delayed by 469 days. The assessee's first appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee contended that notices from CIT(A) were sent via email and were missed.
Held
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the first appeal by CIT(A) was against the mandate of natural justice and section 250(6) as it was an ex-parte order.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the ex-parte order of CIT(A) for non-prosecution should be set aside to allow a de novo adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3), 253(5), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
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).
Page 1 of 8
Praveen Rathore ITA No. 872/Ind/2025 - AY 2015-16
The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 469
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:
Page 2 of 8
Praveen Rathore ITA No. 872/Ind/2025 - AY 2015-16
Page 3 of 8
Praveen Rathore ITA No. 872/Ind/2025 - AY 2015-16
The averments made by assessee in above affidavit/application, which
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
Page 4 of 8
Praveen Rathore ITA No. 872/Ind/2025 - AY 2015-16
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.
The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the
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
Page 5 of 8
Praveen Rathore ITA No. 872/Ind/2025 - AY 2015-16
assessee’s appeal for non-prosecution. Still aggrieved, the assessee has
come in next appeal before us.
Ld. AR for assessee submitted that in present case, the Ld. CIT(A)
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).
The Ld. DR for revenue, though not opposing the prayer of the
assessee for restoration, submitted that the assessee had remained non-
compliant during the proceedings of first-appeal, which constrained the Ld.
Page 6 of 8
Praveen Rathore ITA No. 872/Ind/2025 - AY 2015-16
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.
In view of above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle
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.
However, we find that the assessee has remained non-responsive
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
Page 7 of 8
Praveen Rathore ITA No. 872/Ind/2025 - AY 2015-16
challan to AO during the proceeding of fresh adjudication and shall not
claim any credit or refund of such payment.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose, subject
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