Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in transport lifting supervision, filed an ITR declaring income. During a survey, the assessee surrendered income. The AO made additions for disallowed bad debts and commission income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the reasonable cause and lack of prejudice to the revenue. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was not well-reasoned and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without proper opportunity, and whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 133A, 254
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No: 786/RPR/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20) Vishwanath Gupta, Energy Sales vs Assistant Commissioner of Income- Corporation, Near Old Post Office, Tax, Central Circle, Bilaspur, Aayakar Manendragarh C. G.-497442 Bhawan, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, C. G.-495001 PAN: AFBPG2039P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Yash Jain, CA राज" की ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 12/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of : 17/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R
Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, AM:
This appeal for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2019-20 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.08.2025 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘CIT(A)’], Raipur-3 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).
The following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee: -
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Raipur-3 has erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte 1 Vishwanath Gupta, Manendragarh vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur without providing proper opportunity and without following the principles of natural justice.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Raipur-3 has erred in confirming disallowance of bad debts written off amounting of Rs.1,49,845/- 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Raipur-3 has erred in confirming addition of commission income amounting to Rs.9,38,000/- 4. The impugned order is bad in law and on facts.
5. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, omit or amend all or any of the grounds of appeal in the interest of justice.”
3. The relevant facts required for adjudication of this case are that the assessee, engaged in business of transport lifting supervision, filed his Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) on 30.07.2020 declaring income of Rs.46.09.550/-. The assessee’s business premises were surveyed under section 133A of the Act on 19.02.2019. The case was picked up for scrutiny. During the course of survey proceedings, the assessee had surrendered income of Rs.55,00,000/- as commission from his transport lifting supervision business. The assessee had declared total commission income of Rs.57,33,000/- in his Profit & Loss account of the relevant year and after claiming loss of Rs.11,21,889/- and considering incomes under various heads, the resultant income was declared in ITR. In the assessment, the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) made disallowance of discount of Rs.1,49,845/- and addition of Rs.9,38,000/- under the head “commission income”. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution.
2 Vishwanath Gupta, Manendragarh vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur
The appeal filed before us is delayed by 47 days. The reason for the same has been detailed as medical reasons in the affidavit filed before us, which primafacie appears satisfactory. Further, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Sr. did not raise any objection for condonation of the delay. However, we are deciding the delay condonation petition on the merit.
There is no dispute that under section 254 of the Act, the Tribunal may pass such orders as it thinks fit. In case of HL Malhotra & Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Circle-12, New Delhi (ITA No. 211/2020 & CM Appeals 32045-32047/2020 dated 22nd December, 2020), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that in absence of anything malafide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, the Court should normally condone the delay as the intent is always to promote substantial justice following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 2 SCC 107 and N. Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy 1998 (7) SCC 123.
We find the justification for filing this appeal after the prescribed time limit is satisfactory and that is why Ld. Sr. DR does not raise any objection for condonation of delay. We, therefore, do not see any prejudice which will be caused to the Revenue in deciding this appeal on merit. In light of aforesaid discussions, in exercise of powers under section 254 of the Act, we therefore, following the above mentioned decisions, hereby condone the delay in filing this appeal as we are satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not presenting this 3 Vishwanath Gupta, Manendragarh vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, delay is condoned in the interest of substantial justice.
Mr. Yash Jain, CA, Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) of the assessee drew our attention to the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) had decided the appeal mainly ex-parte due to non-prosecution and the reasoning given by him upholding the additions were not well speaking though the Ld. CIT(A) had to decide the case with speaking order. He therefore, prayed for remanding the case back to the Ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR, drawing our attention to various paras of the assessment order and impugned appellate order, submitted that reasonable opportunities of being heard had been provided to the appellant assessee by the Authorities below. However, the appellant assessee tactfully ensured noncompliance to avoid investigations. Hence, the Authorities below passed well-reasoned orders based on their records. She, therefore prayed for dismissing the appeal and upholding impugned order.
We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on the record. We find force in the arguments/contention of the Ld. AR. Further, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal with well-reasoned order. We take note of the fact that the assessee has made non-compliance consistently before the Ld. CIT(A). However, considering the facts in entirety and in the interest of justice, we, without offering any comment on merit of the case, we deem it fit to set 4 Vishwanath Gupta, Manendragarh vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the case afresh/denovo, in accordance with the law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We, thus, order accordingly. The appellant assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in remitted appellate proceedings.
In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.