PANNALAL RAMPHER YADAV,SILVASA vs. ITO, SILVASSA, SILVASSA
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) for non-prosecution due to non-response to several notices. The assessee's counsel explained the delay was due to the assessee's advanced age and medical ailments. The tribunal condoned the delay of thirty-six days.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) is required to dispose of the appeal on merits, even in case of non-appearance. Dismissing an appeal for want of prosecution without adjudicating on merits is contrary to the statute. The matter was remitted to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits? Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned on the grounds of medical ailments and advanced age?
Sections Cited
69A, 250(6), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH “SMC” SURAT
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “SMC” SURAT
BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
ITA No. 647/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Pannalal Rampher Yadav, ITO Dayat Falia, Silvassa-396230. Vee Bee Mall, Near Civil Court, Vs. Silvassa-396230. PAN NO. ACAPY 5557 C Appellant Respondent
: Mr. Parin Shah, CA Assessee by Revenue by : Mr. J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 09/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/10/2025
ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2019-2020, raising following grounds :
The order passed by the lower authorities is invalid, bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.2811341 u/s 69A of the Act ignoring submission of the appellant.
Pannalal Rampher Yadav 2 ITA No. 647/SRT/2025
Ld. NFAC ought to have pass an order as per the provision Ld. NFAC ought to have pass an order as per the provision Ld. NFAC ought to have pass an order as per the provision u/s 250(6) of the Act rather than dismissed the same on u/s 250(6) of the Act rather than dismissed the same on u/s 250(6) of the Act rather than dismissed the same on limine. limine. 2. At the very inception of the hearing, the learned Counsel for At the very inception of the hearing, the learned Counsel for At the very inception of the hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee adverted to a delay of the assessee adverted to a delay of thirty-six days in the filing of the six days in the filing of the present appeal, as noted by the Registry. The learned Counsel, present appeal, as noted by the Registry. The learned Counsel, present appeal, as noted by the Registry. The learned Counsel, inviting our attention to the deposition of the assessee placed on inviting our attention to the deposition of the assessee placed on inviting our attention to the deposition of the assessee placed on record, submitted that owing to his advanced age and attendant record, submitted that owing to his advanced age and attendant record, submitted that owing to his advanced age and attendant medical ailments, the asse medical ailments, the assessee was unable to attend to his office ssee was unable to attend to his office matters regularly, and, as a result, remained unaware of the order matters regularly, and, as a result, remained unaware of the order matters regularly, and, as a result, remained unaware of the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It was tax (Appeals). It was only upon his counsel’s subsequent verification of the e-proceedings only upon his counsel’s subsequent verification of the e only upon his counsel’s subsequent verification of the e portal that the existence of the said order came to his notice. he existence of the said order came to his notice. he existence of the said order came to his notice.
2.1 Upon consideration of these submissions and the material Upon consideration of these submissions and the material Upon consideration of these submissions and the material before us, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by a before us, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by a before us, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by a sufficient and bona fide cause from filing the appeal within the sufficient and bona fide cause from filing the appeal within the sufficient and bona fide cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The delay being neither deliberate iod of limitation. The delay being neither deliberate iod of limitation. The delay being neither deliberate nor contumacious, but occasioned by circumstances beyond the nor contumacious, but occasioned by circumstances beyond the nor contumacious, but occasioned by circumstances beyond the assessee’s control, we deem it fit, in the interest of substantial assessee’s control, we deem it fit, in the interest of substantial assessee’s control, we deem it fit, in the interest of substantial justice, to condone the delay of thirty justice, to condone the delay of thirty-six days. The appeal is six days. The appeal is accordingly admitted for adjudication. y admitted for adjudication.
On perusal of the record, it transpires that the assessee did On perusal of the record, it transpires that the assessee did On perusal of the record, it transpires that the assessee did not respond to the notices of hearing issued by the learned not respond to the notices of hearing issued by the learned not respond to the notices of hearing issued by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who consequently dismissed the appeal in Commissioner (Appeals), who consequently dismissed the appeal in Commissioner (Appeals), who consequently dismissed the appeal in
Pannalal Rampher Yadav 3 ITA No. 647/SRT/2025
default. The relevant extract from th default. The relevant extract from the impugned appellate order e impugned appellate order records that several notices were duly issued and served through records that several notices were duly issued and served through records that several notices were duly issued and served through the registered e-mail address of the assessee, but no response was mail address of the assessee, but no response was mail address of the assessee, but no response was forthcoming. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, forthcoming. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, forthcoming. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, concluded that the non concluded that the non-appearance was deliberate and that the deliberate and that the assessee was not interested in pursuing his appeal. The learned assessee was not interested in pursuing his appeal. The learned assessee was not interested in pursuing his appeal. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) placed reliance upon the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) placed reliance upon the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Another CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Another [(1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC)], the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court [(1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC)], the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court [(1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC)], the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT [(1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP)], [(1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP)], and the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in and the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in CIT v. Multiplan India CIT v. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del.)], and dismissed the [(1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del.)], and dismissed the [(1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del.)], and dismissed the appeal accordingly. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:
Several notices were issued giving opportunities of being heard to 4. Several notices were issued giving opportunities of being heard to 4. Several notices were issued giving opportunities of being heard to the appellant, which were duly served upon the appellant through the appellant, which were duly served upon the appellant through the appellant, which were duly served upon the appellant through registered email. No response is rece registered email. No response is received till date. The particulars of ived till date. The particulars of notices issued are as under: notices issued are as under: Sr. Date of Notice Date of Notice Date of Remarks No. hearing
1 22.04.2024 22.04.2024 03.05.2024 Delivered on the registered e-mail mail address given by the appellant, but no address given by the appellant, but no response received. 2 12.12.2024 12.12.2024 17.12.2024 Delivered on the registered e-mail mail address given by the appellant, but no address given by the appellant, but no response received. 3. 27.12.2024 27.12.2024 03.01.2025 Delivered on the registered e-mail mail address given by the appellant, but no address given by the appellant, but no response received.
Pannalal Rampher Yadav 4 ITA No. 647/SRT/2025
4 14.01.2025 14.01.2025 21.01.2025 Delivered on the registered e-mail mail address given by the appellant, but no address given by the appellant, but no response received. 5 28.01.2025 28.01.2025 03.02.2025 Delivered on the registered e-mail mail address given by the appellant, but no address given by the appellant, but no response received.
4.1 In view of the above, it appears that the non In view of the above, it appears that the non-appearance appearance to notices is deliberate as all the notices have been duly served upon the is deliberate as all the notices have been duly served upon the is deliberate as all the notices have been duly served upon the appellant on the registered email account. No response has been appellant on the registered email account. No response has been appellant on the registered email account. No response has been received from the appellant till date. It is reasonable to infer from the received from the appellant till date. It is reasonable to infer from the received from the appellant till date. It is reasonable to infer from the continued non- -compliance that the appellant is not serious to pursue t is not serious to pursue its appeal. 4.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another, 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal and Another, 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal and Another, 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively prosecuting it. means more than formally filing it but effectively prosecuting it. means more than formally filing it but effectively prosecuting it. Hon'ble M.P. High Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late TukojiraoHolkar Court in the case of Estate of Late TukojiraoHolkar vs. CWT, (1997) (223 ITR 480) (M.P.) dismissed the reference in default vs. CWT, (1997) (223 ITR 480) (M.P.) dismissed the reference in default vs. CWT, (1997) (223 ITR 480) (M.P.) dismissed the reference in default and for not taking necessary steps. Similar view has been taken by and for not taking necessary steps. Similar view has been taken by and for not taking necessary steps. Similar view has been taken by I.T.A.T. Delhi Bench in the case ofCIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) L I.T.A.T. Delhi Bench in the case ofCIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) L I.T.A.T. Delhi Bench in the case ofCIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (1991 )(38 ITD 320). Considering the above, it appears that the appellant is )(38 ITD 320). Considering the above, it appears that the appellant is )(38 ITD 320). Considering the above, it appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. However, going on merits and not interested in prosecuting its appeal. However, going on merits and not interested in prosecuting its appeal. However, going on merits and facts available on record, I find no infirmity in the action of the facts available on record, I find no infirmity in the action of the facts available on record, I find no infirmity in the action of the Assessing Officer. Hence, there is n Assessing Officer. Hence, there is no occasion for interfering with the o occasion for interfering with the same.” 3.1 Having carefully considered the matter, we are constrained to Having carefully considered the matter, we are constrained to Having carefully considered the matter, we are constrained to observe that, under the mandate of Section 250 of the Income-tax observe that, under the mandate of Section 250 of the Income observe that, under the mandate of Section 250 of the Income Act, 1961, the first appellate authority is required to dispose of the Act, 1961, the first appellate authority is required to dispose of the Act, 1961, the first appellate authority is required to dispose of the appeal by passing a reasoned and speaking order on the merits of assing a reasoned and speaking order on the merits of assing a reasoned and speaking order on the merits of the case, even in the event of non the case, even in the event of non-appearance by the appellant. The appearance by the appellant. The dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution, without adjudicating dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution, without adjudicating dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution, without adjudicating upon the merits, does not accord with the letter and spirit of the upon the merits, does not accord with the letter and spirit of th upon the merits, does not accord with the letter and spirit of th statute.
3.2 In the present case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has In the present case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has In the present case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has confined himself to the default of appearance without undertaking confined himself to the default of appearance without undertaking confined himself to the default of appearance without undertaking
Pannalal Rampher Yadav 5 ITA No. 647/SRT/2025
any discussion of the issues arising from the assessment order. We any discussion of the issues arising from the assessment order. We any discussion of the issues arising from the assessment order. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the are, therefore, of the considered view that the ends of justice would ends of justice would be better served if the matter is remitted to the learned be better served if the matter is remitted to the learned be better served if the matter is remitted to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh adjudication on merits, after Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh adjudication on merits, after Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh adjudication on merits, after affording the assessee due opportunity of being heard. affording the assessee due opportunity of being heard. affording the assessee due opportunity of being heard.
3.3 Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Commi Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Commi Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside. The matter is restored to his file with the (Appeals) is set aside. The matter is restored to his file with the (Appeals) is set aside. The matter is restored to his file with the direction to consider the assessee’s submissions and to dispose of direction to consider the assessee’s submissions and to dispose of direction to consider the assessee’s submissions and to dispose of the appeal by a reasoned order in accordance with law. The the appeal by a reasoned order in accordance with law. The the appeal by a reasoned order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to ensure that his written submissions and assessee is also directed to ensure that his written s assessee is also directed to ensure that his written s supporting documents are filed within fifteen days of receipt of the supporting documents are filed within fifteen days of receipt of the supporting documents are filed within fifteen days of receipt of the first notice of hearing issued by the learned Commissioner first notice of hearing issued by the learned Commissioner first notice of hearing issued by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
3.4 Accordingly, the ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is ordingly, the ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is ordingly, the ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed and remaining grounds rare not adj allowed and remaining grounds rare not adjudicated. udicated.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes. Order pronounced by way display o Order pronounced by way display of result on notice board f result on notice board on 30/10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. /10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. /10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 30/10/2025
Pannalal Rampher Yadav 6 ITA No. 647/SRT/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard file.
BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Surat ITAT, Surat
