Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed late by 106 days. The assessee claims the delay was due to receiving notices and orders on an incorrect email address, leading to a lack of communication and non-compliance. The assessee is an uneducated person with no knowledge of internet or complex tax laws.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 106 days, finding sufficient cause explained by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication on merits, observing that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without affording sufficient opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee can be condoned and whether the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) passed without proper opportunity of hearing is sustainable.
Sections Cited
144, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
सुनवाईक�तार�ख /Date of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणाक�तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 23/09/2025 ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 26.11.2024 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11.
The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 106 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone of delay. The contents of petition for condonation of delay, are as follows; Umashanker B. Sharma “1]1 have filed an appeal before the honourable ITAT, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot as per on 15/05/2025. In respect of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) passed on the order u/s.250 26/11/2024 dismissing my appeal dtd.26/11/2024 bearing DIN:ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070633662(1). The date of appeal order is 26/11/2024 I have filed the ITAT appeal in respect of that order on 15/05/2025. The appeal as such is late by 106 days. In this connection I respectfully state that when the assessment proceedings and appeal proceedings were going on I was not in Jetpur, but was in Agra and was staying there. I further state that it has been mentioned in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) that the notices were sent through e-mail ID: itcs2019@rediffmail.com. However, this e-mail ID is not mine and I do not remember also as to whose e-mail ID it is. As such, the notices sent in the above e-mail ID were not in my knowledge. 3] As such because of communication gap I could not reply to the queries raised in the assessment and could not make submission. This is the reasons as to why the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) has been dismissed for non-compliance. 4] I am an uneducated person studied up to 7th dropout in a local village school of Uttarpradesh. I further submit that I have no knowledge about the internet and I have no knowledge about the intricacies of income tax law, as a result of which in respect of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dtd.26/11/2024 I could not file the appeal within the stipulated time. 5] It was only when I came to Jetpur in April/May-2025 that I came to know and understand that an order of the Ld.CIT(A) has been passed on 26/11/2024; and thereafter on getting the advice I filed the appeal before the honourable ITAT Bench, Rajkot on 15/05/2025. This appeal is belated appeal late by 106 days. The reason for the delay is as stated above.”
On the basis of the contents of the petition for condonation of delay, the Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has explained the sufficient cause for condonation of delay stating that notices and order of Ld.CIT(A) were delivered on other’s email-id, hence, such delay has occurred, which may be condoned in the interest of justice, and matter may be remitted back to the file of the assessing officer.
On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay, and stated that delay should not be condoned on such filmsy reasons.
I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. I note that the assessee has explained sufficient cause in the petition for Umashanker B. Sharma condonation of delay, a perused of the affidavit gives me an impression of existence of mitigation circumstances to enable me to exercise my discretion in favour of the assessee. Therefore, reasons explained in the petition for condonation of delay are convincing in nature, therefore I condone the delay of 106 days, and admit the appeal of assessee for hearing on merit.
At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the appellate proceedings, the notices were not served on the assessee, therefore, the assessee could not appear and file required documents and details before the Ld.CIT(A), and as a result, the Ld.CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that now the assessee is ready with all required documents and details which are to be submitted before the assessing officer, and hence matter may be remitted back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue did not raise any objection, if the assessee’s matter is remitted back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.
I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non- speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.
Umashanker B. Sharma 9. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. The assessee has participated in appellate proceedings and sought adjournment during the appellate proceedings to file details and documents, however, Ld. CIT(A) did not allow further time to the assessee. I note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of assessing officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. I hold and direct accordingly. The assessing officer will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. The Assessee will also be at liberty to let in further evidence to substantiate its case. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 23/09/2025.