NARAYANI EDUCATIONAL HEALTH AND CHARITABLE TRUST,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA
Facts
The assessee's appeals were filed 143 days after the due date. The delay was attributed to the assessee's counsel, who explained the reasons for the delay. The Departmental Representative did not object to the condonation of delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay after finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as the original orders were passed ex-parte.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities should be set aside and the matter restored for decision on merit.
Sections Cited
250(6)
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
Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)(hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”]even dated 24.12.2024 for the AY 2013-14, 2015- 16 & 2016-17.
At the outset, we note that the appeals of the assessee are barred by limitation by 143 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeals. 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,
The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the orders were passed ex-parte by the learned CIT (A) as well as by the learned Assessing Officer. The ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore prayed that the issue may kindly be restored to the file of the ld. CIT (A), so that issue could be decided on merit afresh.
3.1. The ld. DR on the other hand did not oppose the counsel of the assessee.
3.2. We after hearing the submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that apparently these appeals were decided ex-parte by the learned CIT (A) as well as by the learned Assessing Officer. We note that despite numerous notices, none represented 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, these appeals are 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. The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (VICE PRESIDENT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Patna, Dated: 28.11.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//
Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna
