What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without adhering to the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for the assessee to ensure proper compliance.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to a lapse on the part of the counsel. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was delayed by 282 days. The ITAT condoned the delay, considering the counsel's lapse as a sufficient cause.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution due to counsel's lapse can be set aside and the matter restored for fresh adjudication. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT can be condoned.

Mahamadali Adam Patel, Bharuch vs ITO | s.250(6), 253(5) | ITAT Surat 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT ‘DB’ BENCH, SURAT

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, CA

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. D.R

Hearing: 11/06/2026Pronounced: 24/06/2026

आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by the order of first-appeal dated 15.03.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of the assessment-order dated 30.12.2016 passed by learned ITO-1(3), Bharuch [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2014-15, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

Page 1 of 11

2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 282 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:

3. The averments made by assessee in above application/affidavit, 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 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. In judicial decisions, the lapse on the part of counsel has been accepted as a “sufficient cause”. 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 his return of income of AY 2014-15 declaring a total income of Rs. 21,38,439/-. The case of assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment and the AO issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) which were complied with by assessee. Ultimately, the AO completed assessment

Page 8 of 11

after making a total addition of Rs. 44,02,000/- and assessing total income at Rs. 65,40,439/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal whereupon the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeal for non-prosecution and upheld AO’s order. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.

Ld. AR for assessee carried us to Para 4.1 to 4.6 of impugned order of first-appeal and submitted that in present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order dismissing assessee’s first appeal and merely approving the order of Ld. AO, 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 bona fide reason as explained in the matter of condonation of delay i.e. due to the lapse of counsel. Therefore, the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and the present matter may be restored at the level of Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is having, all relevant details and documents and ready to make an effective representation before Ld. CIT(A) and assured 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-

Page 9 of 11

compliant during the proceedings of first-appeal, which constrained the Ld. CIT(A) to pass ex-parte order. It was, therefore, submitted that while restoring the matter, appropriate directions may be issued to ensure strict compliance by the assessee.

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 restore this matter 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 a speaking order on merits in accordance with law. 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. Ordered accordingly.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 24/06/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat True Copy दिन ांक /Dated : 24/06/2026 Rajesh/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A)

Page 10 of 11

(5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order

UE COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Surat Bench, Surat

Page 11 of 11

MAHAMADALI ADAM PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARUCH

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments