PRABHAT KUMAR CHAURASIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 37(1),, KOLKATA

ITA 3064/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 February 2026AY 2022-20233 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 condoned the delay of 103 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was decided ex-parte by the learned CIT(A) despite numerous notices, and that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merit. The Tribunal held that this was a violation of the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the appeal 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 Tribunal also clarified that the assessee should not seek adjournments unless required for valid and reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Prabhat Kumar Chaurasia, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2022-23. The appeal was filed 103 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The assessee's counsel explained the reasons for the delay, and the Revenue's counsel did not object to the condonation. The assessee's counsel further submitted that the NFAC had passed an ex-parte order and requested the matter be restored to the NFAC for a decision on merits. The Revenue's counsel did not oppose this request.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee. 2. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the learned CIT(A) was in violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, and if so, whether the appeal should be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for a decision on merits. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the appeal was delayed due to bonafide and genuine reasons. Furthermore, the assessee contended that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) was ex-parte and prayed for the issue to be restored to the learned CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not raise any objection to the condonation of delay. The Revenue also did not oppose the assessee's prayer for restoring the appeal to the learned CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, AR

For Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR

Hearing: 29.01.2026Pronounced: 17.02.2026

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 12.06.2025 for the AY 2022-23.

At the outset, I note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 103 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, I find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and , hence, I condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order was passed ex-parte by the learned CIT (A). The ld. Counsel for the assessee

3.1. The ld. DR on the other hand did not oppose the counsel of the assessee.

3.2. After hearing the submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, I find that apparently this appeal was decided ex-parte by the learned CIT (A). I 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. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.02.2026.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →