Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which upheld the assessment order. The assessee's principal officer was unwell during the assessment and appellate stages, preventing proper participation. This resulted in a delay in filing the present appeal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the orders of the lower authorities were not based on merits and violated principles of natural justice due to the assessee's inability to participate. Therefore, the case was set aside and remanded.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed by the assessee should be admitted despite the delay, and whether the lower authorities' orders are sustainable on merits given the assessee's inability to participate due to illness.
Sections Cited
253, 144, 144B, 246A, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT & SHRI PARESH M JOSHI
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee Under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/ 1064882037(1) dated 15.05.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned
Society for Information Technology Development - A.Y.2020-21 order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2020-21 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020.
2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order made u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, the assessee’s total income exigible to tax was computed and assessed at Rs. 99,33,986/- . The assessee’s Return of Income was Rs.9,89,776/-. Addition of Rs.89,44,212/- was made. That the aforesaid assessment order bears Number : ITBA/AST/S/144/2022-23/1045926281(1) and that the same is dated 24.09.2022 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”.
2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on grounds stated therein.
2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in Form 36 in against the “impugned order” which are as under:-
Society for Information Technology Development - A.Y.2020-21 “1. That the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals, National Faceless Assessment Centre is bad & defective both in the law and facts.
That due to bed rest of assessee's principal officer rom from 01.01.2022 to 30.09.2022 due to his health issues. therefore assessee could not give responses for the same for assessment proceedings made u/s 144 After that assessee had preferred an appeal against the order u/s 144 on 04.10.2022 as and when assessee's principal officer recovered from his ill health. Thereafter filing appeal again assessee's principal officer went onto bed-rest from 01.01.2023 to 31.08.2024 due to his serious illness. We on humble note request you to allow the appeal and assuring you to fully cooperate with honorable benches/your good office”.
Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 09.06.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of assessee appeared before us and interalia brought to out notice that registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. We note that instant appeal was filed on 12.09.2024 by e-filing method. In Form No.36 date of “impugned order” is shown as 15.05.2024. Date of service of “impugned order” is shown as 15.05.2024. The assessee has filed a condonation of delay application and desires that this Tribunal should condone the delay in preferring this instant appeal. It is contended that assessee society’s Principal
Society for Information Technology Development - A.Y.2020-21 Officer has remained unwell for a considerable period of time which caused serious prejudice to them consequently delay in filing instant appeal besides other prejudices too were caused to assessee society. An affidavit in support of Society’s Director Cum authorized signatory is placed on record in support of condonation of delay. The Ld. DR for Revenue has not opposed the condonation of delay application and so also an affidavit in support of same. After hearing both Ld. AR & Ld. DR and so also after perusing the condonation of delay application including an affidavit in support we condone the delay. Appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing.
3.2 The Ld. AR for assessee society then contended that the both the orders of the lower authority i.e. of Ld. A.O’s “impugned assessment order” and that of Ld. CIT(A)’s “impugned order” are not on merits and are in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that due to illness of the Principal Officer’s of assessee’s society for long time they could not respond to Ld. A.O as well as Ld. CIT(A) as he was bed ridden. The assessee society has filed written submission cum statement of Page 4 of 7
Society for Information Technology Development - A.Y.2020-21 facts wherein the assessee society has highlighted ill health of their Principal Officer which led to non participation both at original stage of assessment and so also at 1st appellate stage.
Per contra Ld. DR too stated that both the orders of lower authorities are not on merit and in the circumstances matter should be set aside and be remanded to Ld. A.O.
Observations,findings & conclusions.
4.1 We now have to adjudge and adjudicate the present appeal filed by the assessee company on the basis of the records of the case and contentions canvassed before us during the course of hearing. In brief we have to decide the legality, validity and the proprietery of the “impugned order”.
4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case as presented to this tribunal by both Ld. AR and Ld. DR to determine the legality, validity of the “Impugned Order” basis law and by following due process of law.
Society for Information Technology Development - A.Y.2020-21 4.3 We basis records of the case, after hearing and upon examining the contentions are of the considered opinion that but on the other hand the “impugned assessment order” and “Impugned Order” are not on merits of the case. We are of the considered opinion that both the orders of lower authorities ought to have been on merits but unfortunately that is not so.
Needless to state that the assessment of income both at the original stage as well as at 1st appeal stage (if necessary and required) should as far as possible, should be on merits of the case so that real income of assessee is discovered in quasi judicial manner.
4.4 In the facts and circumstances of the present case assessee society could not participate at both levels of lower authorities i.e before Ld. A.O and Ld. CIT(A) (1st appeal stage) on account of sickness of assessee society’s Principal Officer. Hence under these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we set aside the “Impugned Order” and remand the case back to Ld. A.O on denovo basis.
Society for Information Technology Development - A.Y.2020-21
Order 5.1 The “Impugned Order” is set aside as and by way of remand back to Ld. A.O on denovo basis.
5.2 Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 11.06.2025.