Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) which had dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-appearance without adjudication on merits. There was a delay of 454 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, for which the assessee sought condonation citing various reasons including issues with their CA and personal difficulties.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte for non-appearance without deciding on merits, citing a High Court precedent. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for de novo adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned. 2. Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating it on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act.
Sections Cited
250, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAILSHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing – 06/10/2025 Date of Order - 08/10/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.
The assessee has filed the present appeal challenging the impugned order dated 24/01/2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2000-01.
Alongwith the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the partner of the assessee, submitting as follows: - “a) That the order was sent on email address of my CA as well as me on 24/01/2023. However, the same was not seen by the CA immediately due to heavy work load of time barring cases. The CA could see the same only in the Ist week of April 2023. b) That after seeing the order, they advised to me that appeal against the said order needs to be filed before higher authorities within 60 days of receipt of the order on the portal. c) That after consultation with the CA, I decided to file the appeal for which I told them to prepare the necessary papers. d) That they prepared the appeal papers by the third week of April 2023 and sent me for signing and payment of appeal fees. e) That after signing the papers, 1 forwarded the papers to my accountant to deliver to CA Dixit Jain of my CA Mohanlal Jain & Co. f) That my accountant delivered the documents to CA Dixit Jain for filing in the month of May. g) That in the meantime CA Dixit Jain's father who is 65 years aged was diagnosed with cancer and he got busy in his father's treatment. h) That the papers duly signed remained with CA Dixit Jain. i) That after the treatment, he left my CA's firm Mohanlal Jain & Co and forgot to inform them about the filing of appeal before Your Honour's. j) That M/s Mohanlal Jain & Co. shifted their office from Marine Lines to Nariman Point in the month of December 2023. k) That I couldn't confirm whether appeal has been filed or not because I was held up in some property matters before Hon'ble High Court as well as some disputes with my wife. l) After shifting of all the files & papers, in the first week of May 2024, my CA firm came to know that appeal in the case has remained to be filed. Thereafter they tried to call me but couldn't do so due to change of mobile number, m) That I was under the impression that the payment had been made and appeal had been filed. n) That they contacted me through my relative & apprised me of the appeal status. o) That immediately thereafter I approached my CA and collected the challan for making the payment of the appeal fees. p) That the payment of appeal fees has been made on 14/06/2024. q) That in the view of the aforesaid reasons which were inadvertent and without any malafide intention, there was a delay of 454 days from the receipt of impugned order. r) That I had no malafide intention to jeopardise the interest of revenue in delaying the filing of appeal.
5. The due to the aforesaid genuine reasons there has been delay in filing of this appeal, hence, 1 am making this application for condonation of delay in filing this present appeal. In the circumstances I submit and request that the delay in filing of this appeal may be condoned. The lapse on the part of the appellant in not filing this appeal within the stipulated period was unintentional and entirely due to inadvertence and also due to unavoidable circumstances mentioned above.”
Having considered the submissions, we are of the considered view that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Accordingly, we condone the delay.
We have considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. We further find that the learned CIT(A) merely on the basis of non-compliance with notices, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits, as required under section 250(6) of the Act. We find that in CIT v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), reported in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal on merits. We further direct that no order shall be passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the hearing dates as may be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08/10/2025