Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee filed an appeal against an NFAC/CIT(A) order for AY 2018-19, which confirmed disallowances made in an assessment order u/s 143(3). The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-compliance, and there was a delay of 177 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons bona fide. Citing judicial precedent, it ruled that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal merely for non-prosecution without deciding on its merits. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the Assessee a proper opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned; whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution without addressing the merits.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :: NAGPUR
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 26/09/2024 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (in short, ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y. 2018-19.
2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 177 days in filing of the instant appeal, on which Assessee has filed an application along with duly sworn affidavit dated 27/05/2025, mentioning the following facts:-
“1. That I am the appellant in the present appeal and as such I am fully aware of the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear this affidavit.
That the impugned order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed by the NFAC, New Delhi dated 26/09/2024, for the Assessment Year 2018-19.
3. That I did not receive the hearing notices issued by the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, on my registered email ID and was therefore unaware of the hearings scheduled and the eventual disposal of the appeal ex parte.
That during the pendency of the appellate proceedings, I was represented by a different counsel and was in the process of appointing a new counsel to represent me in the appeal against the said order.
5. That after engaging the new counsel, the necessary documents and information was compiled to prepare and file the appeal. The appeal has now been finalized and is being filed on 26th May 2025, resulting in a delay of approximately six months from the date of the impugned appellate order.
That the delay is purely unintentional and occurred due to a combination of factors including non-receipt of notices, change of legal representation, and time taken to gather and compile the necessary documentation. There was no negligence or malafide intent on my part.
That I most respectfully pray that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly condone the delay of 6 months in filing the appeal and admit the same in the interest of Justice.”
Considering the reasons for delay in filing the instant appeal appears to be genuine, bonafide and unintentional, the delay is condoned.
4. Admittedly, the Assessee despite of affording various opportunities by the Ld. Commissioner in appeal proceedings, initiated against the assessment order dated 19/04/2021 u/sec. 143(3) of the Act making disallowances of Rs. 6,09,950/- on account of ‘underreported income’, Rs. 3,98,730/- on account of ‘Job Work – Carpenter’ and Rs. 225/- on account of ‘interest on TDS’ failed to make any compliance and therefore, Ld.Commissioner in constrained circumstances decided the issues involved and/or appeal as exparte for non-prosecution without going into the merits of the case which is otherwise is not allowed to do so. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr.CIT (Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) laid down the dictum that CIT(A) is obligated to decide an appeal on its merits and cannot dismiss it solely for non-prosecution or non- appearance of the appellant. Thus, the case is restored to the file of Ld.Commissioner for decision afresh on merits, suffice to say by affording a reasonable opportunity of bearing heard to the Assessee.
In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 23.09.2025 as per Rule 34(5) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.