GANESH RAMNATH DHOOT,SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), AURANGANAD, AURANGABAD

I.T.A.No.2367/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year 2013-2014) Ganesh Ramnath Dhoot, ITO, Ward-1(1), Flat no.04, Plot No.14/15, Aurangabad. Suprabhat Residency, Khivansara Park, Ulkanagari vs. Chh. Sambhajinagar-431001 PAN : ARNPD 5408 K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Santosh Garud, CA For Revenue : Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT-DR (through virtual) Date of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated 01/07/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”), which is arising out of assessment order u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 28/03/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.

2 ITA.No.2367/PUN./2025 (Ganesh Ramnath Dhoot) 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 13 days in filing the instant appeal. Application for condonation of delay along with affidavit has been furnished and the delay is on account of non-communication by the Tax Consultant who is looking after the tax matters and the assessee had no knowledge about passing of appellate order, hence, the delay has occurred. Considering the fact that the assessee is totally dependent on the Tax Consultant for taxation and appeal works, and the delay is not intentional, we, therefore, adopting a justice oriented approach and also taking guidance from the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107] and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), hereby condone the delay of 13 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the same for adjudication.

3 ITA.No.2367/PUN./2025 (Ganesh Ramnath Dhoot) 4. Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, did not oppose the request made by the learned counsel for the assessee.

5. In the appeal filed before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee sought adjournments on the dates of hearing fixed on 29/05/2024 & 10/07/2024, but failed to comply with the notices of hearing fixed for 09/08/2024 and 23/05/2025 due to such non-compliance, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine observing that assessee doesn’t want to pursue the appeal, but Ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of the case.

4 ITA.No.2367/PUN./2025 (Ganesh Ramnath Dhoot) necessary details, therefore, Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without dealing with the merits of the case. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (Bombay) [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom.) has held that Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits, even in an ex-parte order. In view of the above judgment and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, we deem it proper to remit back all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and passing a speaking order as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall grant fair hearing of opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 21.11.2025.