MAHENDRA PRASAD,BUXAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), BUXAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 292/PAT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 November 2025AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 78 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine, as the Revenue did not object. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was decided ex-parte by the learned CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. Despite numerous notices, no one appeared before the learned CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merit. The Tribunal held that this was a violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed not to seek adjournments unless required for valid and reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mahendra Prasad, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Patna Bench, against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated January 31, 2025, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeal was filed 78 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The assessee's counsel explained the delay, and the Revenue's Representative (DR) did not object to the condonation. The assessee's counsel argued that the order under challenge was passed ex-parte by both the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). An adjournment petition filed by the assessee was denied by the Bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation, and if so, whether the delay should be condoned? (Question of fact turning on Section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: - The appeal is barred by limitation by 78 days. - The delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons. - The order under challenge was passed ex-parte by the learned CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. - An adjournment petition was filed but denied. Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue's Representative did not raise any objection in condoning the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 253(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Hearing: 28.11.2025Pronounced: 28.11.2025

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 31.01.2025 for the AY 2015-16.

2.

At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 78 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal.

3.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order was passed ex-parte by the learned CIT (A) as well as before the learned 3.1. We after hearing the submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that apparently this appeal was decided ex-parte by the learned CIT (A) as well as before the learned Assessing Officer. We note that despite numerous notices, none presented before the ld. CIT (A) and the ld. CIT (A) passed an ex- parte order in limine without deciding the issues at merit, which in our opinion is in violation of Provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, this appeal is restored to the file of the learned CIT (A) with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is further clarified that assessee should also not seek any adjournments unless otherwise required for valid and reasonable cause.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →