SUNIL KUMAR MOOLCHANDANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO,1(2), BHOPAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 577/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 December 2025AY 2014-158 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 185 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had a 'sufficient cause' due to his serious health condition and hospitalization, supported by medical reports. The Tribunal referred to 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 over technicalities. The Tribunal also decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. This decision was based on the principle of natural justice and the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 2,500/- to the "Prime Minister Relief Fund" and submit the receipt to the AO. The AO was instructed to provide a hearing opportunity and pass an order uninfluenced by previous orders. The assessee was further directed to be vigilant and ensure participation in hearings, failing which the AO could pass an order in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sunil Kumar Moolchandani, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the CIT(A), which arose from an assessment order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the AO under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal was delayed by 185 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, citing a serious health condition (cardio metabolic disorder) and hospitalization from 15.02.2025 to 28.02.2025, which prevented timely response to notices and the CIT(A)'s order. The reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information alleging an accommodation entry of ₹10,00,000/- from Smt. Simran Bajaj. The assessee's first appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-representation, attributed to the same medical reasons.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 185 days in filing the present appeal before the ITAT, as required under Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The delay was caused by the assessee's serious health condition and hospitalization, preventing timely compliance. A medical certificate has been provided. There was no mala fide intention or negligence. The assessee relies on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others for a justice-oriented approach. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of the Bench without raising any objection. 2. Whether the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh, considering the ex-parte nature of the assessment and first appellate orders due to the assessee's medical reasons? Assessee's Contention: The assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's medical condition and inability to represent during the Covid-19 period. The assessee is willing to make a proper representation if an opportunity is given, and therefore, the matter should be remanded to the AO. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue had no objection to remanding the matter to the AO but requested stricter directions for the assessee's obedience and imposition of reasonable cost.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250,Section 253(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Goyal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.12.2025Pronounced: 16.12.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 04.12.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 01.09.2021 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2014-15, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

2.

The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 185 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation-application/affidavit; the assessee’s application is scanned and re-produced below:

Page 4 of 8 Referring to contents of above, Ld. AR submitted that the delay has occurred due to bad health condition of assessee. The assessee has also filed a medical certificate of Govt. Jay Prakash District Hospital, Bhopal. Thus, Ld.

AR submitted that the sole reason of non-compliances before CIT(A) leading to ex-parte dismissal of assessee’s first appeal by CIT(A) as well as occurrence of delay in filing present appeal before ITAT was the medical reason of assessee. Ld. AR submitted that there is no lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the Page 5 of 8 assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He submitted that there was a ‘sufficient cause’ for occurrence of delay. He prayed to condone delay. Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without raising any objection. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee in application/affidavit and the supporting medical reports submitted before us and in view of same, 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 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.

3.

On merit of case, the Ld. AR submitted that the order of CIT(A) is ex- parte due to non-representation by assessee and the non-representation occurred due to medical reason of assessee. Further, the assessment-order passed by AO is also ex-parte since the hearings were fixed during Covid-19 period and the assessee was unable to represent. However, the assessee is ready and willing to make a proper representation before AO if an Page 6 of 8 opportunity is given. Accordingly, Ld. AR prays that the present matter should be remanded to the file of AO for adjudication afresh.

4.

Ld. DR for revenue submitted that he would not have any objection if the bench takes a call to remand this matter to AO. However, he makes a request to give stricter directions to assessee to make obedient in proceedings. He also requested that the bench should imposed a reasonable cost upon assessee.

5.

In view of above 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 restored at the level of AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 2,500/- by assessee to “Prime Minister Relief Fund” and submission of receipt to AO during proceedings. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. 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.

6.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced by putting up on notice board as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 16/12/2025

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →