Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was delayed by 216 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to severe illness, business closure, and lack of notice regarding the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) and the assessment order under Section 144 for AY 2017-18.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 216 days, acknowledging the assessee was prevented from filing on time. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the case back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard, emphasizing principles of natural justice and cautioning the assessee to cooperate.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and assessment under Section 144 should be set aside for a fresh hearing, ensuring natural justice.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Bijaya Saha,…………….……………..……...……Appellant 135/1, Collin Street, Kolkata-700016 [PAN:ATGPS1165D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-32(1), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances by: Shri Vinod Kr. Mathur, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: November 13, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: November 17, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 04.10.2024 passed for Assessment Year 2017-2018.
(A.Y. 2017-2018) Bijaya Saha 2. The appeal is time barred by 216 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed an affidavit before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 216 days mentioning that the delay occurred due to suffering from severe blood diseases and also stating that all the businesses have completely closed down and was not aware of any notices of hearing and the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and it was really difficult for him to have access to his Accountant and also other professionals to handle the said matter. No such notices were ever issued by the NFAC and the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not served upon him either through e-mail or through registered post or any other form. When he came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), he approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 216 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and there was no deliberate lapse or negligence on his part. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 216 days. Hence the delay is condoned.
(A.Y. 2017-2018) Bijaya Saha
At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has passed the order ex-parte without giving opportunities to the assessee. He also submitted that even the assessment order has been passed under section 144 of the Act due to non-compliance from the side of the assessee. He prayed for one more opportunity to substantiate his case before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
At the time of hearing, ld. Sr. Departmental Representative supported the orders of lower authorities.
I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that as there was no response to the notices to substantiate the claim with documentary evidences and submissions, ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. It is also evident that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not discussed the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal due to non-appearance. I also find that the assessment order has been passed u/s. 144 of the Act as the assessee remained non- compliant and failed to produce any evidence or supporting (A.Y. 2017-2018) Bijaya Saha documents in support of the claim. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and in order to meet the principle of natural justice, remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 17/11/2025.