SUNIL KUMAR PEJJAI,CHILAKALURIPETA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against a reassessment order for A.Y. 2018-19, which was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance. The assessee then filed an appeal to the ITAT with a 59-day delay, attributing the delay to outdated contact information of a former consultant leading to unawareness of CIT(A) proceedings. The Ld. DR opposed condonation, citing the assessee's history of non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 59-day delay in filing the appeal, adopting a justice-oriented and liberal approach. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, remanding the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file all necessary evidence and cooperate fully without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the ITAT; Ex-parte dismissal by CIT(A) without adjudication on merits; Validity of reassessment proceedings under various sections of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 148A(d), 148, 151, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH AT HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M. : This appeal is filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Pejjai (“the assessee”),
feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner
of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC),
Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 09.01.2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19.
ITA No.350/VIZ/2025 2
At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 59 days in filing
of the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a
petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining
the reasons. The explanation of the assessee is that on the Income
Tax portal, the mobile number and e-mail ID of his earlier consultant
were registered. That consultant had left the place and his contact
number also got changed. Consequently, the assessee could not
come to know about the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and the
passing of the appellate order. It has been explained that the
assessee came to know about the order of the Ld. CIT(A) only when
summons was received from the Income Tax Department on
02.05.2025. Immediately thereafter, the assessee took steps to file
the present appeal, which was filed on 29.05.2025. It has been stated
that there was no deliberate or intentional delay. Accordingly, the
Ld. AR prayed before the bench for condonation of delay in filing of
the appeal and admission of the same for adjudication.
ITA No.350/VIZ/2025 3
Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld.
DR”) opposed the condonation. He submitted that the assessee has
been consistently non-compliant i.e. first, by not filing return of
income despite huge cash deposits; second, by not responding to
notices before the Ld. AO; third, by not prosecuting the appeal
before the Ld. CIT(A); and now, by filing this appeal belatedly. He
contended that the conduct of the assessee does not merit
indulgence and the delay should not be condoned.
We have considered rival submissions and perused the
material available on record. It is not in dispute that there is a delay
of 59 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has explained that he
could not receive notices or order of the Ld. CIT(A) due to non-
updated mobile number and e-mail ID of his earlier consultant on the
portal. As soon as he came to know of the order on 02.05.2025,
immediate steps were taken and the appeal was filed on 29.05.2025.
Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vidya
Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur in
ITA No.350/VIZ/2025 4
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31st
January, 2025, has held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach
should be taken while dealing with the application filed by an
appellant seeking condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal.
Accordingly, taking a judicial and liberal approach, we condone the
delay of 59 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for
adjudication on merits.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
ITA No.350/VIZ/2025 5
The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee had filed an
appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the reassessment order passed
by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 147 read
with section 144 and section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the
Act”) for A.Y. 2018–19 on 19.02.2024. During the appellate
proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not make any
compliance to the notices issued. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A)
dismissed the appeal ex parte.
Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in
appeal before this Tribunal. The solitary submission of the Ld. AR
ITA No.350/VIZ/2025 6
was that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Ld.
CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. He submitted that the
assessee could not respond to the notices of the Ld. CIT(A) due to
bona fide reasons. As already explained the reasons for delay in
filing the appeal before this Tribunal, the assessee was not aware of
the notices issued and hence could not prosecute the appeal before
the Ld. CIT(A). He contended that no benefit accrues to the assessee
by non-prosecution and dismissal ex parte. Therefore, invoking the
principles of natural justice, he prayed that the issue may be restored
to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits
after giving the assessee an effective opportunity.
Per contra, the Ld. DR opposed the prayer for remand. He
submitted that the assessee did not cooperate either before the Ld.
AO or before the Ld. CIT(A), and now seeks a fresh opportunity
without justification. He further submitted that there was even a
delay in filing of the present appeal before the Tribunal, which also
ITA No.350/VIZ/2025 7
reflects the conduct of the assessee. Hence, according to the Ld. DR,
no further indulgence should be granted.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and
perused the material available on record. It is undisputed that the
appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte on account of
non-compliance by the assessee. While the conduct of the assessee
in not responding to notices cannot be condoned lightly, at the same
time, it is a settled position that a litigant should not be denied a
hearing on merits merely on account of non-appearance, provided
he is willing to prosecute the matter further. The principles of natural
justice demand that the assessee be given one final opportunity to
substantiate his claim. We therefore deem it fit to restore the matter
to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions that, the Ld. CIT(A)
shall decide the appeal afresh on merits, after giving adequate
opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also
directed to file all necessary evidence, explanations, and submissions
in support of his claim without seeking any unnecessary
adjournments and to cooperate fully with the appellate proceedings.
ITA No.350/VIZ/2025 8
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and
restore the appeal to his file for fresh adjudication.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 19th Sept., 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad. Dated: 19.09.2025. * Reddy gp Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. Shri Sunil Kumar Pejjai, 3-458, Pandaripuram, 9th Lane, Chilakaluripeta-522 616, Guntur District, A.P. 2. The ITO, Ward 2(1), Guntur. 3. Pr.CIT, Vijayawada. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER,
