CAREER POINT MONTESARI SIKSHA SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 515/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 July 2025AY 2018-19Bench: DR.MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 151 days, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-appearance on hearing dates, despite the appeal being filed within the stipulated time. The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was 151 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the case should be remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 143(3A),Section 143(3B)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES “SMC”, JAIPUR

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia
For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh
Hearing: 01.07.2025Pronounced: 29.07.2025

आदेश / ORDER

1.

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 30.08.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 27.02.2021 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act.

2.

Registry has informed that the appeal before this Tribunal is time barred by 151 days. Application for condonation of delay has been placed on record. Main reason for the delay is that the notice(s) of hearing by ld.CIT(A) were not sent on the e-mail id mentioned in Form No.35 but were sent on the e-mail id of the previous consultant who did not communicate the

3.

After hearing both the sides and going through the averments made in the condonation application by the assessee, I find that due to 'reasonable cause' assessee failed to file the appeals within the stipulated time limit. Having regard to the facts of the instant case, I condone the delay of 151 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeals for adjudication in light of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382).

4.

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. In the instant appeal, the assessee has raised sole ground challenging the addition of Rs.23,64,175/- made by ld. Assessing Officer in the hands of assessee AOP for A.Y. 2018-19 as against the Nil income declared in the e-return filed on 13.07.2018. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) raising the grounds in Form No.35 but then on account of non-appearance of the assessee on few dates of hearing ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal. However, ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of the case and failed to pass a speaking order. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for providing one more opportunity of hearing by remitting the issue to the file of ld.CIT(A). Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand did not oppose this request.

Career Point Montesari Siksha Samiti 5. Considering these facts and the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, I in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties remit the issue raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). Assessee is at liberty to adduce all the required submissions/evidences before ld.CIT(A) to substantiate the case. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 29th day of July, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →