Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were directed against orders of the CIT(A). The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter for a fresh opportunity, subject to a cost payment of Rs. 2000/- for each appeal to be paid within one month. The assessee failed to comply with this direction within the stipulated time.
Held
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals as not maintainable due to non-compliance with the cost payment, the purpose of the remand was for adjudication on merits. The delay in payment was considered an inadvertent and bonafide mistake by the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals should be dismissed on technical grounds for non-compliance with the cost payment direction, or be adjudicated on merits.
Sections Cited
Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
2 ITA.Nos.1114 to 1119/Hyd./2025 appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this single consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
The assessee has raised the following grounds:
1. “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that the appeal is not maintainable without considering the reasons for the delayed payment made to Prime Minister National Relief Fund (PMNRF).
2. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the payment of Rs.2000/- to Prime Minister National Relief Fund (PMNRF), though delayed, has been ultimately made in full as this reflects appellant's good faith in rectifying the omission.
The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have provided adequate opportunity to be heard before deciding on the matter regarding the delay in making the payment to Prime Minister National Relief Fund (PMNRF).
4. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have condoned delay in remitting the said amount to Prime Minister National Relief Fund (PMNRF) as the appellant is an individual and the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances which were beyond the control of appellant.
The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the delay in depositing the said amount to Prime Minister National Relief Fund (PMNRF) was not deliberate or intentional and dismissing the appeal as not maintainable on the same reason is not in nature of natural justice.
Appellant may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
3 ITA.Nos.1114 to 1119/Hyd./2025 3. This is second round of litigation as earlier this Tribunal vide Order dated 25.04.2023 remanded all six appeals to the record of the learned CIT(A) for granting one more opportunity to the assessee to prove her case, subject to cost of Rs.2000/- [Rs. Two Thousand Only] to be paid to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the Order of the Tribunal. The learned CIT(A) while passing the impugned orders has noted that the assessee has defaulted in compliance of the directions of the Tribunal in depositing the cost of Rs.2000/- within one month as the assessee paid the said cost only on 24.04.2025. Due to non-compliance of the directions of the Tribunal, the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee as not maintainable.
The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee is a house wife and was not fully aware about the directions of the Tribunal regarding the cost to be paid to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a period of one month. Therefore, it is only an inadvertent and bonafide mistake on the part of the 4 ITA.Nos.1114 to 1119/Hyd./2025 assessee for delay in payment of the cost. Only when the learned CIT(A) asked about the proof of payment of cost, the assessee realized the said mistake and paid the cost. Thus, he has pleaded that the payment of cost belatedly be accepted and matter may be remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
5. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that this is second round of appeal as there was non- compliance on the part of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) in the first round of appeal and, therefore, by giving one more opportunity to the assessee to present her cases the Tribunal remanded the matter to the record of the learned CIT(A) for granting one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to prove her cases subject to cost of Rs.2000/- for each appeal to be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the Order of the Tribunal. Thus, it is a gross negligence on the part of the assessee. He has relied upon the Order of the learned CIT(A).
5 ITA.Nos.1114 to 1119/Hyd./2025 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The Tribunal vide Order dated 25.04.2023 remanded the matter in respect of all six assessment years to the record of the learned CIT(A) for granting one more opportunity to the assessee to present her cases and file the documentary evidences in support of her claim. It was also observed that the learned CIT(A) has to call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. This opportunity was granted to the assessee subject to cost of Rs.2000/- for each appeal to be deposited in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the Order of the Tribunal. The learned CIT(A) has noted the fact of non-payment of the cost of Rs.2000/- each in favour of Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund in Para-6.4.1 as under:
“6.4.1. As per the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT, notices dated 30.03.2025 and was issued to the appellant to furnish documents/information in support of her contentions. Appellant is expected to comply to the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT and furnish proof of payment of Rs.2,000/- in favour of PMNRF for each of the appeals under adjudication. The appellant, in response filed her submissions which were identical to the submissions made during
6 ITA.Nos.1114 to 1119/Hyd./2025 first round of appeal proceedings before the then Ld. CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad. It is important to note that the appellant had not furnished any proof of payment of Rs.2,000/- in favour of PMNRF as required. Therefore, a letter dated 21.04.2025 was issued to the appellant specifically requesting to produce the proof of payment of Rs.2,000/-. In response, the appellant submitted a letter dated 25.04.2025 along with a screenshot from PMNRF website indicating the payment made toward PMNRF. ….” 6.1. Thus, by noting the fact that the assessee has not paid the cost within the period as ordered by the Tribunal, but it was paid only when specific notice was issued by the learned CIT(A) asking the assessee to produce the proof of payment of the cost of Rs.2000/- for each appeal and thereafter, the assessee has paid the cost on 25.04.2025. Thus, it is clear that there is a default on the part of the assessee in payment of cost within the time period of one month from the date of receipt of the Order of the Tribunal. The assessee has now explained the reasons for the delay in payment of the cost as the assessee is a house wife and could not fully understood the directions of the Tribunal and only when the learned CIT(A) issued a specific notice for production of the receipt of the payment of cost, the assessee realized the said mistake which is an inadvertent and 7 ITA.Nos.1114 to 1119/Hyd./2025 bonafide and then paid the cost immediately on 25.04.2025. We further note that only after the receipt of the letter/notice dated 21.04.2025 was issued by the learned CIT(A) asking the assessee to produce the proof of payment of cost, the assessee paid the cost on 25.04.2025 and produced the receipt before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine as not maintainable due to non-compliance of the directions of the Tribunal in respect of payment of cost. Since the purpose of remanding the appeals by the Tribunal to the learned CIT(A) was for adjudication of the appeals on merits, after proper verification and examination of the supporting evidence through the remand report of the Assessing Officer. However, the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee due to default in payment of the cost within the time limitation granted by the Tribunal. Thus, the fact remains that the matter was still not adjudicated on merits and dismissed on technical ground due to the default on the part of the assessee in making payment of the cost within the time period directed by the Tribunal. Having considered the facts
8 ITA.Nos.1114 to 1119/Hyd./2025 and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we admonish the default of the assessee for not making the payment of cost within the time period subject to further cost of Rs.1000/- each for six appeals to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this Order. Since the matters are not decided on merits, therefore, the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) are set aside and the matters are remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, in terms of the earlier directions of the Tribunal.
In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 09.01.2026.