SUVIKSHA HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESMENT CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 394/PAT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Patna03 November 2025AY 2018-193 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte due to a delay of 174 days without adjudicating the matter on merits. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee's appeal before it had a delay of 242 days, for which a petition explaining the reasons was filed. Although none appeared for the assessee at the hearing, the Tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice, felt the assessee deserved another opportunity to present its case before the lower appellate authority. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to ensure due compliance with notices and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The issue of the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT was effectively condoned by restoring the matter to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee, Suviksha Health Care Private Limited, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 declaring nil income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny concerning default in Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). The Assessing Officer (AO), after issuing notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) and not being satisfied with the assessee's replies, made additions and determined the total income at ₹16,23,445. The assessee appealed to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (CIT(A)). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 174 days in filing, without adjudicating on merits. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 242 days. None appeared for the assessee at the ITAT hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should condone the delay of 242 days in filing the appeal before it, given the assessee's explanation for the delay. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte due to a delay of 174 days without adjudicating on merits. Assessee's contentions (implied through the appeal and delay petition): The assessee likely argued that the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT was for valid reasons and should be condoned. The assessee also implicitly argued that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits of the case, thereby denying a proper opportunity to be heard. Revenue's contentions: The revenue did not record any specific contentions in the judgment. However, the revenue was represented by the Departmental Representative (DR) at the ITAT hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH, PATNA

Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, AM

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Hearing: 30.10.2025Pronounced: 03.11.2025

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 10.10.2024 for the AY 2018-19.

2.

The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring total income as nil. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of default in deduction of tax at source (TDS) and disallowance of such default. In response to the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961,

3.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was a delay of 174 days in filing the appeal and that the assessee could not properly explain the reasons for such delay. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

4.

Being aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 242 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed a petition explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the same. However, when the matter was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any adjournment petition was filed. We after perusal of the record, it is noticed that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex parte without adjudicating the matter on merits. In the interest of substantial justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to represent its case before the lower appellate authority. Accordingly, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure due

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 03.11.2025.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →