BHOPPANA PRASAD RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), BHILAI, BHILAI

At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee. However, an adjournment petition has been filed which is rejected. The matters are heard after recording the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and on a careful perusal of the materials available on record.

At the very outset, it is noted that as evident from paras 5.1, 5.2 & 5.3 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC vide an ex-parte order had dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance by the assessee. For the sake of clarity, the Paras 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC order in ITA No.164/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2009-10 are extracted as follows:

09.01.2021 15.01.2021 The appellant filed written submissions on 13.01.2021 stating that he has opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. 2. 01.12.2023 08.12.2023 No compliance from the appellant/authorized representative of the appellant.

11.12.2023 19.12.2023

22.12.2023 01.01.2024 No compliance from the appellant/authorized representative of the appellant.

12.01.2024 19.01.2024 No compliance from the appellant/authorized representative of the appellant.

23.02.2024 29.02.2024 No compliance from the appellant/authorized representative of the appellant.

10.04.2024 18.04.2024

2 In view of the above, except for two instances i.e. on 13.01.2021 & 23.07.2022, there is no compliance from the appellant to any of the recent notices issued. It is clearly evident that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T. v. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. (1979) 118 ITR 461 held that appeal does not mean only filing of memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol Vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009 dated 17.09.2010 held that in cases where assesses do not want to pursue the appeal court/tribunal had inherent power to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Multiplan India( P) Ltd 38 ITD 320 and Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480(MP) has held that the appeal filed by the appellant is liable for dismissal for want of prosecution. 5.3 Accordingly, it is well settled legal position that merely by riling an appeal, it is not possible to adjudicate the matter by the appellate authorities until and unless the assessee effectively prosecute such appeal. In the instant case, as clearly explained at Para No.4.1 above, the assessee has failed to prosecute its appeal as the appellant/AR of the appellant filed any written submission in support of the grounds of appeal.”

The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that in these parameters of an ex-parte order being passed, the bench had provided one final opportunity to the assessee to explain the matter on merits before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC providing benefit of doubt to the assessee for such non-compliance and in the interest of natural justice, therefore, the matters should be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for denovo adjudication as per law in terms with settled principles on the present facts of ex-parte order by the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC as decided by ITAT, “Division Bench”, Raipur in the cases of Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy./ACIT, Central Circle-2, Naya Raipur, IT(SS)A Nos. 1 to 6, 8 & 9/RPR/2025, dated 20.03.2025. 5. At this stage, I herein observe that the ITAT, “Division Bench”, 775, 776 & 777/RPR/2025, dated 12.03.2026 had dealt with similar issue on the same parameters of ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC following the order passed in cases of Brajesh Singh Bhadoria (supra), observing as follows: “6. We have heard the submissions of the parties herein and analyzed the facts and circumstances in this case. We note that in all these appeals, an ex-parte order has been passed by the First Appellate Authority due to non-

In other words, as per the intent of the legislature the First Appellate Authority has to pass order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act and thereafter, the matter if appealed before the Tribunal it would look into the correctness of the decision by the sub-ordinate authorities, whether the law has been correctly applied to the facts of the case while determining the substantive rights and liabilities of the parties. There cannot be any short cut route allowed to the assessee for assailing any legal ground or saying that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and get relief from Tribunal even without bothering to comply with the hearing notices before the First Appellate authority. If such practice is allowed, the entire intention of the legislature and the process of adjudication

That in such scenario we are of the considered view that the Income tax Act is within the ambit of welfare legislation which are completely different from that of the penal legislation, therefore, benefit of doubt whenever arises, it has to be interpreted in favour of the assessee tax payer within the parameters of law and facts. There may be circumstances beyond control of the assessee because of which, the assessee may not have been able to represent his case on the given dates of hearing before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). Though it is correct that there was no compliance from the side of the assessee, however, nothing is there on record which suggests any deliberate non-compliance or malafide conduct of the assessee. That further, if one final opportunity is provided to the assessee to represent his case before the first appellate authority, the position of the revenue will also not be jeopardized.

Recently, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (2025) 171 taxmann.com 696 (Bom.), dated 04.02.2025 observed that in the case the Assessing Officer had passed an ex-parte order and when the matter went on appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, it had also dismissed the matter ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee’s authorized representative, when the matter came up before the ITAT, it had failed to address the infirmity regarding the fact that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard and the matter was dismissed ex- parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice, and instead ITAT decided the case on merits, in such circumstances, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that passing of an order on merits by the ITAT even when the impugned order was passed ex-parte amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly, the said matter was remanded to ITAT for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the parties. The legal principle as enshrined in the present judgment is crystal clear that the principles of natural justice i.e. the right to be heard is to be provided and accordingly, the matter had to be substantially adjudicated by the appellate authority. Therefore, if the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is an ex-parte order, the only recourse in conformity with the aforesaid judicial

In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay had referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter-alia held that Article 14 guarantees a right of hearing to a person who is adversely affected by an administrative order. The principle of audi-alteram partem is a part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the aforesaid case had referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar 1969 1 SCC 591, wherein the Supreme Court in interpreting the section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 has held that the appellate tribunal was bound to give a proper decision on question of fact as well as law, which can only be done if the appeal is disposed off on merits and not dismissed owing to the absence of the appellant. Reverting to the facts of the present case the grounds of appeal were simply filed before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) they were not substantiated or corroborated through submissions and filing of documentary evidences since the assessee had not complied before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) on the dates of hearing. Therefore, as per framework of the Act there must be adjudication on merits by the first appellate authority and one final opportunity be provided to the assessee to represent his matter on merits in the interest of natural justice.

There may even be a situation where the Ld. Counsel for the assessee may assail a legal ground before the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) with a contention that irrespective of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) being ex- parte, the Tribunal may decide the legal issue that has been raised by the Ld. Counsel. In our view, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal

In view thereof, we set aside the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for all the years and remand the same to their file for denovo adjudication on merits. At the same time, we direct the assessee that this being the final opportunity, there must be compliance on merits before the first appellate authority. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass an order in terms of Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act within three months from receipt of this order.”

Respectfully following the aforesaid order, on the same parity of reasoning and as per rule of consistency, we set- aside the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matters back to its file for denovo adjudication while complying with the principles of natural justice. At the same time, it is directed that this being the final opportunity, the assessee shall duly comply with the hearing notices from the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and represent the matters on merits. The Ld.CIT(Appeal)/NFAC shall consider the submissions of the assessee and accordingly pass speaking order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act.

As per the aforesaid terms, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.”

Respectfully following the aforesaid order, on the same parity of reasoning and as per rule of consistency, I set-aside the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matters back to its file for denovo adjudication as per law while complying with the principles of natural justice. At the same time, it is directed that this being the final opportunity, the assessee shall duly comply with the hearing notices from the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and represent the matter on merits. The Ld.CIT(Appeal)/NFAC shall consider the submissions of the assessee and 12 Boppana Prasad Rao Vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Bhilai ITA Nos. 164 to 167/RPR/2026 ITA Nos. 170 & 171/RPR/2026

As per the aforesaid terms, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 17th day of March, 2026. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 17th March, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File.