Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee also sought condonation of delay, explaining that they are a non-resident and did not receive the notices for hearing, only becoming aware of the order through a penalty notice.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's explanation of not receiving notices and the fact that the assessee is suffering from cancer. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after an ex-parte order was passed.
Sections Cited
250, 69, 11, 10B, 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the learned Commissioner of Income- Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre[in short, ‘CIT(A), NFAC’], Delhi, dated 11.12.2025 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:
“1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by passing an ex-parte order.
The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of INR 73,52,395 under Section 69 made by the Assessing Officer.
The learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the CPC/AO to allow the claim for exemption under Section 11 to the appellant irrespective of condonation of delay in filing Form 10B granted by the Commissioner of Income tax (Exemption).
The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest charged under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income tax Act. 5. Each one of the above grounds of appeal
is without prejudice to the above.
6. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter or amend to the above grounds of appeal.”
None appeared on behalf of the assessee, when the case was called repeatedly. From the file, we observed that the notice of the present appeal for hearing was already issued to the assessee through RPAD and also through e-mail id. Rajeshanila001@yahoo.co.in as per the report of registry. Since the notice was issued on the address given by the assessee and 30 days have already been lapsed from the date of issuance of notice therefore while drawing inference under the General Clauses Act, it is presumed that service has been validly effected upon the assessee therefore considering these circumstances assessee is proceeded ex-parte.
At the very outset, we noticed that there is delay 3. of 139 days in filing present appeal and in this regard assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay is on the record. The contentions of which is reproduced herein below:
I am making this application before your honour for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order passed under Section 250 of the Income tax Act by learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) for the aforesaid assessment year. It appears that the said order has been uploaded on the Income tax Portal on 30 May 2025 i.e. the date of the order passed by the CIT(A).
I would like to bring to your notice that I am a non- resident. Although the hon'ble CIT(A) mentioned that three notices for the hearing issued to me, I did not receive any notices. When I received the notice for the penalty proceeding from the tax department on 11 December 2025 for the same assessment year, I came to know while checking the Income tax-Portal about the order passed by the CIT(A). Due to these reasons, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) under Section 250 has remained unattended.
We are, therefore, writing this letter to you for seeking condonation of (approx.) 203 days delay in filing this appeal.
We, therefore, request you to please condone the delay and accept the appeal..
On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same.
After having heard Ld. DR on this application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained in the application and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353 Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that were substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and taking sympathetic view that assessee in his application is suffering from cancer and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Therefore we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.
From the records, we noticed that assessee was ex- parte before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.
Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that assessee was ex-parte and could not substantiate its grounds raised in the appeal and could not put effective representation. Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case and substantiate the grounds raised by him before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh by providing sufficient and adequate opportunity to the assessee subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced on 30.01.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Anandi.Nambi(Steno) MUMBAI Date: .01.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File
ByOrder