MADHYA PRADESH POLICE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 109/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 November 2025AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the submissions of the assessee and noting that the revenue did not object. On merits, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) had decided the first appeal ex-parte because the assessee failed to make submissions despite opportunities. The assessee contended that the grounds raised required adjudication on merit as per Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates that the CIT(A)'s order must state the points for determination, the decision, and the reasons. The assessee expressed willingness to make a proper representation before the CIT(A) if given an opportunity and prayed for a remand. The revenue agreed with this prayer, requesting the assessee to represent its case diligently. The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass an order uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and ensure participation in hearings, failing which the CIT(A) could pass an order in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Madhya Pradesh Police Housing Corporation Ltd., filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi, which upheld an assessment order passed by the ACIT-2(1), Bhopal. The appeal was filed for Assessment Year 2008-09. The appeal was filed with a delay of 356 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, explaining that it had filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the CIT(A) and was awaiting its disposal before filing the appeal. The revenue did not object to the condonation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee should be condoned, considering the reasons provided for the delay? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the delay was inadvertent and unintentional, occurring because they had filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Act before the CIT(A) and were awaiting its outcome. They submitted that the delay was due to a bona fide attempt to seek relief from another forum and that no mala fide intention was involved. They prayed for condonation in the interest of justice. Revenue's contention: The learned Senior Departmental Representative left the matter of condonation to the wisdom of the bench.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 254,Section 154,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa ARs
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.11.2025Pronounced: 25.11.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

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

1.

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 08.11.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 27.12.2019 passed by learned ACIT-2(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2008-09, 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 filed on 21.01.2025 against impugned order dated 08.11.2023 after a delay of 356 days. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed following condonation-application supported by an affidavit:

3.

The assessee is a body of Madhya Pradesh Police. The reasoning given by assessee in above application for occurrence of delay, which is self- explanatory, was discussed and the Ld. DR for revenue left the matter to the wisdom of bench. After taking judicious consideration of submissions made by assessee, we are inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone delay and decide this appeal on merit.

4.

On merit, the Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has decided first-appeal ex-parte qua assessee for the reason that the assessee did not make any submission before him despite opportunities given. He further submitted that the CIT(A) has simply confirmed the order passed by AO and thereby upheld the additions but the grounds/issues raised by assessee in first appeal requires an apt adjudication by CIT(A) on merit in accordance with provisions of 250(6) of the Act which provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. Ld. AR acknowledges that the assessee is ready and willing to make a proper representation before CIT(A) if an opportunity is given and prays that the present matter should be remanded to CIT(A) for an apt adjudication.

5.

Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

6.

Considering 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 CIT(A), we remand this matter back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The CIT(A) 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 CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

7.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 25/11/2025

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →