ILA BHATNAGAR,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA APPEALS, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 374 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had a "sufficient cause" for the delay due to non-service of notices at the correct email address. The Tribunal relied on Section 253(5) of the Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal also remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was that the assessment order was passed under Section 144, and the assessee claimed their submissions were not properly considered. The Tribunal held that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by restoring the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing, consider the assessee's submissions, and pass an appropriate order without being influenced by the previous order. The assessee was directed to ensure participation and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Ha Bhatnagar, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench, against an order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi. This order arose from an assessment order dated 28.12.2019 passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO)-2(3), Bhopal, under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 374 days. The assessee contended that the delay was due to non-service of notices by the CIT(A) at the correct email address provided, leading to an ex-parte order and subsequent delayed receipt of the impugned order. The revenue did not object to the condonation of delay.
What were the issues?
1. Whether there is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 374 days in filing the appeal, as per Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was caused by the CIT(A)'s office issuing notices to an incorrect email address (sobhaniagarwal@diffmail.com instead of sobhani_agarwal@rediffmail.com), resulting in the assessee's inability to attend hearings and receive the impugned order. This constitutes a "sufficient cause" for the delay. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not have any objection to the condonation of delay. 2. Whether the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, considering the assessment order was passed under Section 144 and the assessee's submissions were allegedly not properly considered? Assessee's Contention: The assessee submitted that although replies were filed with the AO, they were not properly considered, and the AO mentioned non-filing of details. The assessee expressed readiness to make further submissions to the AO and requested a remand for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not object to the remand but prayed for a direction to the assessee to cooperate and represent before the AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal bearing DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057550288(1) dated 31.10.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 28.12.2019 passed by learned ITO-2(3), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 374 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application-cum-affidavit for condonation of delay.
Referring to contents of same, Ld. AR narrated that the assessee did not receive any notice of hearing from the office of Ld. CIT(A). He pointed out that the assessee mentioned email id: sobhani_agarwal@rediffmail.com but the office of CIT(A) issued notices of hearings to email id: sobhaniagarwal@diffmail.com as is noted by Ld. CIT(A) himself in Para 3.1 of impugned order. Therefore, due to non-service of notices at proper email id given by assessee in Form No. 35, the assessee could not attend hearings fixed by CIT(A), which has led to the passing of ex-parte order by CIT(A).
Further, for the very same reason of non-service of impugned order to proper e-mail id given by assessee, the assessee did not get the impugned order which has resulted in delayed filing of this appeal. Therefore, there is a “sufficient cause” for occurrence of delay and hence the delay must be condoned. Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection against condonation of delay. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and Page 2 of 5 AY 2017-18 others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.
Ld. AR next submitted that the assessment-order was passed by AO u/s 144. He submitted that although the assessee filed replies to AO which the AO has also acknowledged in assessment-order but, however, the AO did not consider assessee’s submissions properly and stated about non- filing of details/documents by assessee. He submitted that even if there be any lack of submission on the part of assessee, the assessee is ready to make vehement submissions to AO and satisfy the AO about the queries raised or to be raised. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this matter must be remanded to AO for a fresh adjudication.
Ld. DR for revenue submitted that he does not have any objection against remand to AO but, however, he prays that the bench to direct the assessee to extend co-operation and representation before AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
In view of above facts and considering the submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is Page 3 of 5 AY 2017-18 restored at the level of AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order after considering submissions of assessee, without being influenced by his previous order in any manner. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced by putting up on notice board in terms of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 24/12/2025
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
