Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 03.06.2024 for A.Y. 2020-21, which upheld an order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B. The appeal to the ITAT was delayed by 284 days due to the death of his auditor and his public duties as an MLA. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal without adjudicating the merits, including an addition of Rs. 96,00,000 as non-agricultural income.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 284-day delay, finding sufficient cause. Citing the Bombay High Court, it held that the Ld. CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication on merits, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, and whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and without deciding the merits of the case.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 144B, 250(6), 10(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE
आदेश /O R D E R
PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 03.06.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”], for the A.Y. 2020-21.
2. The present appeal is delayed by 284 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which is duly Srinivasarao Ganta supported by his affidavit. In the aforesaid application, the assessee submitted that the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) was served on him on 03.06.2024; therefore, the due date for filing the appeal was 30.08.2024. In the application, the assessee submitted that he filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 27.10.2022 through his regular auditor, who was handling his tax-related matters. However, in March 2023, the said Auditor expired, and operations of the Auditor’s Firm were disrupted. The other Chartered Accountants associated with the Auditor’s Firm also left the organisation, resulting in a lack of continuity of services and proper tracking of the tax litigation. As per the assessee, due to the aforesaid circumstances, he remained unaware of the ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 03.06.2024. The assessee further submitted that he is a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly and, therefore, due to the demanding nature of public duties and ongoing political commitments, he is personally unable to oversee the tax proceedings. The assessee further submitted that only in May 2025, when his office staff received a telephonic communication from the Income Tax Department regarding the outstanding demand arising pursuant to Ld.CIT(A) order, the matter came to his knowledge, and thereafter, necessary steps were taken for filing the present appeal.
Having considered the submissions of the assessee and perusal of the material available on record, we are of the considered view that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal
Page No. 2
In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed u/s143(3) r.w.s.144B of the I.T. Act dt: 16-09-2022, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC vide order passed u/s 250 of the I.T. Act dt: 03-06- 2024, is not in accordance with the facts of the case and the provisions of law.
The Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal, ex-parte, without granting reasonable opportunity to the assessee, thereby, violating the principles of natural justice.
3. The disposal of the appeal, ex-Parte, by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of Section 250(6) of the IT Act which obligates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merits.
4. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs.96,00,000, being agricultural income claimed as exempt u/s.10(1) of the IT Act, 1961, by erroneously holding the same as non- agricultural in nature.
5. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside in the interest of justice.”
We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte due to non-appearance / on behalf of the assessee. As noticed above, the assessee in its application seeking condonation of delay has explained the circumstances due to which he could not respond to the hearing notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). We further find that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the basis of non-compliance with the notices, without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on their
Page No. 3 Srinivasarao Ganta merits, as required under section 250(6) of the Act. We find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2016] 69 taxman.com 407 (Bombay) held that the Ld. CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for the de novo adjudication of the appeal on merits. We further direct that no order shall be passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee is directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) in all the hearing dates as may be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th September, 2025.