RAMESH CHOUDHARY,SAGOR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC),DELGI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 331/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 September 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member), SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the circumstances explained. The Tribunal also acknowledged that the assessee had collected all relevant details and was ready to represent the case properly.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed after a significant delay. The delay was attributed to an incorrect email address provided to the previous counsel, which resulted in the assessee not receiving notices from the CIT(A). The assessee learned of the ex-parte order only upon receiving a penalty notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal is sufficient cause for condonation and whether the matter should be remanded for proper adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 263,Section 271(1)(c),Section 253(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

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

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Goyal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.09.2025Pronounced: 23.09.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

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

1.

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 29.11.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 24.03.2022 passed by learned ITO-1(4), Indore [“AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2011-12, 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 436 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist; a senior citizen and residing in remote area. He submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation-application supported by an affidavit. Referring to same, Ld. AR explained that in Form No. 35 filed to CIT(A), the e-mail id ykbdhar786@gmail.com was provided which belonged to assessee’s previous counsel. Therefore, neither the notices of hearing nor the impugned order sent by CIT(A) reached to assessee.

Subsequently, when the assessee received penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) from the office of AO in a speed-post on 06.02.2025 and the assessee digged the matter, the assessee became aware of impugned order having been passed by CIT(A) as ex-parte. The assessee thereafter filed present appeal under the guidance of current counsel. Ld. AR very humbly submitted that there is no lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He further submitted that the sole reason of delay is as explained in the condonation-application. He submitted that there is “sufficient cause” for delay and hence the delay should be condoned. Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without raising any objection. 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 Page 2 of 4 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, Ld. AR submitted that the AO has also passed assessment-order ex-parte to assessee due to non-compliances of notices but the assessee has collected all relevant details/documents and is ready and willing to make a proper representation before AO if an opportunity is given and prays that the present matter should be remanded to the file of AO for a proper adjudication.

4.

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

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, at the risk

Page 3 of 4 and responsibility of assessee. 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 in open court on 23/09/2025

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →