Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Madhya Pradesh Building and Other Construction Welfare Board, was subjected to ex-parte assessment for AY 2017-18 under Section 144 after failing to comply with notices under Sections 148, 147, and 142(1)/144. The CIT(A) upheld the ex-parte order and dismissed the first appeal due to continued non-compliance and a 260-day delay in filing, despite the assessee claiming issues with portal usage, incorrect addresses, and staff unfamiliarity.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. It directed the AO to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing, and instructed the assessee to be vigilant and participate in all hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the first appeal should be condoned and if the ex-parte assessment due to non-compliance and communication issues warrants a fresh adjudication at the AO's level.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 148, 142(1), 10(23C)(vi)
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
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 15.03.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.03.2022 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of the 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 backgrounds facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee is a board constituted by State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh for welfare of construction labours and engaged in running various Govt. schemes. The AO, on the basis of information available in ITBA Portal and also in his possession regarding refund of duty drawback received by assessee, investment made by assessee in time deposits with bank, interest income earned by assessee on such time deposits and TDS having been deducted out of same, issued notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2021 to take up assessee’s case for assessment u/s 147. The AO also issued notices u/s 142(1)/144 from time to time. However, all notices issued by AO remained uncompiled by assessee. Ultimately, the AO passed ex-parte assessment-order u/s 144 dated 30.03.2022 determining total income as high as Rs. 260,38,02,571/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A).
2.1 During first-appeal, the CIT(A) issued three notices to assessee but the same also remained uncompiled. Ultimately, the CIT(A) also passed ex-parte order upholding the AO’s order. In his order, the CIT(A) precisely observed that there were non-compliances by assessee before AO. He further observed that there was a delay of 260 days in filing first-appeal also. He considered the reasoning of delay mentioned by assessee in Form No. 35 but did not accept the same as sufficient. Finally, the CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s first appeal.
Page 2 of 6 2.2 Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.
Ld. AR for assessee at first submitted that the assessee is a Board constituted by State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh for welfare of construction labours and engaged in running various Govt. schemes. The assessee is registered u/s 10(23C)(vi) granted by Income-tax Department. Then, he invited our attention to the following Written-Synopsis dated 21.04.2025 filed by assessee to the office of ITAT:
Ld. AR deliberated the submissions made by assessee in above Written-Synopsis and requested to condone the delay which had occurred in filing first appeal before CIT(A) and also restore the present matter to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication.
Ld. DR for revenue agreed with the submission and prayer of assessee/Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to stay diligent and represent its case before AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
Considering the Written-Synopsis of assessee as re-produced above; the submissions of learned Representatives of both sides noted above; 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 for a fresh adjudication, we condone the delay in filing first-appeal and 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 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.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 28/07/2025