RAVI PRAKASH YADAV,DURG,DURG vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), DURG, DURG
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 against an ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was time-barred by 490 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, citing severe illness (chronic hepatobiliary disorder, jaundice, etc.) during the period the appeal was due, supported by medical certificates. The assessee also contended that the CIT(Appeals) had passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient time for compliance with hearing notices.
Held
The ITAT condoned the 490-day delay, accepting it as 'Vis-major' and finding no deliberate or malafide conduct by the assessee, citing various judicial precedents advocating a liberal approach to condonation of delay for substantial justice. The ex-parte order passed by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to duly comply with future hearing notices as this would be the final opportunity, and the CIT(Appeals) was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass an order under Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act within three months.
Key Issues
Whether the 490-day delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to the assessee's illness, and whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(Appeals) for non-compliance should be set aside due to insufficient opportunity.
Sections Cited
Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 250, Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 250(4), Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 250(6), Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5, Constitution of India: Article 14, Income Tax Act, 1922: Section 33(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 23.02.2024 for the assessment year 2014-15 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
At the very outset, it is noted that the appeal is time barred by 490 days. That explaining reasons for such delay, the assessee had filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit with relevant annexures, doctor’s certificates etc. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had passed an order u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’) on 23.02.2024. Due date for filing the present appeal would therefore be completing on 22nd April, 2024. However, as submitted by the assessee through condonation petition supported by certificates of the doctor treating the assessee that the assessee was suffering from symptoms of fatigue, reduced appetite, hepatic inflammation, jaundice and abdominal discomfort. The assessee had also placed on record certificate of Doctor viz. Shri Raghvendra Sharma treating the assessee who belongs to Gindodi Devi Memorial Charitable Hospital & Research Center, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh. The said certificate also provides registration number and it is made part of this order:
3 Ravi Prakash Yadav Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA No.527/RPR/2025
4 Ravi Prakash Yadav Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA No.527/RPR/2025
That from the aforesaid certificate, it is evident that the assessee had been in the treatment of the said doctor since 10th June, 2024. The Doctor also writes that in fact, the disease process had been going for approximately three months prior to the first visit of the assessee at the hospital. In other words, three months prior to 10th June, 2024 would therefore be the period from March, April and May, 2024 which includes the time within which this appeal should have been filed before the Tribunal i.e. on 22nd April, 2024.
That based on the evidences placed on record, the Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise any objection for condonation of the delay on the ground that the assessee was prevented from reasons beyond his control to file the appeal within the period of limitation before the Tribunal.
Having heard the submissions of the parties herein on the issue of delay and on a careful consideration of the evidences placed on record, I hold that the said delay since been caused due to “Vis-major” and for the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, for which, he was unable to comply with the law of limitation. There has been no evidence placed on record by the Revenue contrary to what is already there on record. In other words, there is no deliberate or malafide conduct on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly. In this backdrop, it would be relevant to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
5 Ravi Prakash Yadav Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA No.527/RPR/2025
of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- 26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025, had observed that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, after relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay.
That in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that although the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the merits of the case could not be discarded solely on the ground of delay. A liberal approach, therefore, should be taken in condoning the
6 Ravi Prakash Yadav Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA No.527/RPR/2025
delay when limitation ground undermines the merits of the case and obstructs the substantial justice. In other words, the objective of the court should be to deliver substantial justice coupled with liberal and judicious approach while deciding the issue of limitation and whenever it is found that the case has merits which needs to be addressed substantially, in such case, the delay should be condoned.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and legal principles enshrined in the above mentioned judicial pronouncements, the said delay of 490 days is hereby condoned and the matter is heard on merits.
That so far merits are concerned, as apparent from Para 5.1.a), the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had passed an ex-parte order due to non- compliance by the assessee. That explaining the said non-compliance, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee demonstrates that first hearing notice u/s. 250 of the Act was issued on 18.01.2024 posting hearing of the case on 24.01.2024 i.e. providing less than 15 clear days for response from the assessee. Similarly, second hearing notice u/s.250 of the Act was issued on 31.01.2024 posting hearing of the case on 06.02.2024 i.e. again less than 15 clear days for such response. The third hearing notice u/s. 250 of the Act was issued on 07.02.2024 posting hearing of the case on 13.02.2024 i.e. again less than 15 clear days’ time was only provided to
7 Ravi Prakash Yadav Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA No.527/RPR/2025
the assessee for response. In this context of reasonable period /opportunity, the Hon’ble High Court of Patna in the case of St. Paul’s Anglo Indian Education Society (2023) 262 ITR 377 (Pat.) had categorically held that an adjudication is unjustified if an assessee was deprived of reasonable opportunity and reasonable time to produce all relevant documents to substantiate claims made in the return of income.
Considering the facts and applicability of the judgment cited above, such non-compliance cannot be attributed to any deliberate or malafide conduct of the assessee. Be that as it may, in this spectrum of ex-parte order, I refer to the order of ITAT, “Division Bench”, Raipur in the cases of Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy./ACIT, Central Circle-2, Naya Raipur, IT(SS)A Nos. 1 to 6, 8 & 9/RPR/2025, dated 20.03.2025 wherein it had dealt with similar issue on the same parameters of ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC observing as follows:
“7. We have considered the submissions of the parties herein and analyzed the facts and circumstances involved in all the captioned appeals. After careful perusal of the documents on record, we find that the assessee had assailed the legal ground as aforestated, however, the fact of the matter is that on perusal of the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for all the years before us, it is also evident from Para 3 that there has been no compliance by the assessee before the said authority and as such, an ex-parte order was passed for the concerned years in appeal. Admittedly, as per record, sufficient opportunities had been provided to the assesse, however, there was no compliance by the assessee. In effect, rights and liabilities of the parties herein are yet to be
8 Ravi Prakash Yadav Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA No.527/RPR/2025
adjudicated substantially at the level of the first appellate authority. Though in the impugned orders, discussion has been done as per material available on record by the Ld.CIT(Appeals) but they are only Form 35, statement of facts, grounds of appeal and the assessment order. However, due to non-compliance by the assessee, there are no submissions, evidence and documents submitted for adjudication by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). That as per Para 3 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) order, there has been no compliance on the part of the assessee for submitting detailed explanations regarding the grounds of appeal for the years under consideration which clearly shows that the grounds of appeal raised before the first appellate authority has not been substantiated on merits through corroborative evidence /submissions. 8. That in such scenario we are of the considered view that the Income tax Act is within the ambit of welfare legislation which are completely different from that of the penal legislation, therefore, benefit of doubt whenever arises, it has to be interpreted in favour of the assessee tax payer within the parameters of law and facts. There may be circumstances beyond control of the assessee because of which, the assessee may not have been able to represent his case on the given dates of hearing before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). Though it is correct that there was no compliance from the side of the assessee, however, nothing is there on record which suggests any deliberate non-compliance or malafide conduct of the assessee. That further, if one final opportunity is provided to the assessee to represent his case before the first appellate authority, the position of the revenue will also not be jeopardized. 9. Recently, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (2025) 171 taxmann.com 696 (Bom.), dated 04.02.2025 observed that in the case the Assessing Officer had passed an ex-parte order and when the matter went on appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, it had also dismissed the matter ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee’s authorized representative, when the matter came up before the ITAT, it had failed to address the infirmity regarding the fact that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard and the matter was dismissed ex- parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice, and instead ITAT decided the case on merits, in such circumstances, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that passing of an order
9 Ravi Prakash Yadav Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA No.527/RPR/2025
on merits by the ITAT even when the impugned order was passed ex-parte amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly, the said matter was remanded to ITAT for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the parties. The legal principle as enshrined in the present judgment is crystal clear that the principles of natural justice i.e. the right to be heard is to be provided and accordingly, the matter had to be substantially adjudicated by the appellate authority. Therefore, if the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is an ex-parte order, the only recourse in conformity with the aforesaid judicial pronouncement is to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for fresh adjudication in terms with the principles of natural justice providing one final opportunity to the assessee. 10. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay had referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation vs. DTC Mazdoor Union AIR 1999 SC 564, wherein the Supreme Court inter-alia held that Article 14 guarantees a right of hearing to a person who is adversely affected by an administrative order. The principle of audi-alteram partem is a part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the aforesaid case had referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar 1969 1 SCC 591, wherein the Supreme Court in interpreting the section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 has held that the appellate tribunal was bound to give a proper decision on question of fact as well as law, which can only be done if the appeal is disposed off on merits and not dismissed owing to the absence of the appellant. Reverting to the facts of the present case the grounds of appeal were simply filed before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) they were not substantiated or corroborated through submissions and filing of documentary evidences since the assessee had not complied before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) on the dates of hearing. Therefore, as per framework of the Act there must be adjudication on merits by the first appellate authority and one final opportunity be provided to the assessee to represent his matter on merits in the interest of natural justice.
10 Ravi Prakash Yadav Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA No.527/RPR/2025
There may even be a situation where the Ld. Counsel for the assessee may assail a legal ground before the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) with a contention that irrespective of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) being ex-parte, the Tribunal may decide the legal issue that has been raised by the Ld. Counsel. In our view, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) provides that any legal issue which goes to the root of the matter and is established through legal principles, the assessee can take up and raise such legal issue at any appellate forum irrespective of whether the assessee had raised such legal issue at the sub-ordinate level or not, however, it always depends on facts and circumstances of each case whether the Tribunal would decide the legal ground or in a case where the question is of natural justice and ex- parte order by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) the Tribunal would remand it back to Ld.CIT(Appeals) providing final opportunity to a bonafide assessee. The Tribunal as the highest fact finding authority must be certain enough that the impugned order before it has been passed on merits and is a speaking order where the assessee has also complied during the process of litigation. In case, where the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) itself is ex-parte and some legal ground is raised and if the Tribunal decides such legal ground where in fact principles of natural justice is left unanswered due to the fact that the impugned order before the Tribunal is ex-parte and there was no compliance by the assessee in such scenario the Tribunal would also be usurping the power of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) which is also a statutory authority as per the Act. This is due to the reason that as per framework of the Act, Ld.CIT(Appeals) is the first appellate authority where an appeal by assessee it would be substantially decided through a speaking order by the Ld.CIT(Appeals). When this part is over and either party is aggrieved second appeal lies before the ITAT. Now if for every ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), of course due to non-compliance by the assessee, if the Tribunal adjudicates a legal ground, for instance validity of assessment or reassessment order and answers it in favour of the assessee then it would create an easy route for assessee getting redressal from Tribunal even without bothering to comply with hearing notices before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). This would dismantle the structure of the Act which is definitely not the intention of the legislature. Here in this situation, where the benefit of doubt is given to the assessee since he had not complied with the hearing notices before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)
11 Ravi Prakash Yadav Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA No.527/RPR/2025
which resulted in passing of an ex-parte order by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), in such scenario, as per the scheme of the Act and following the principles of natural justice, the only course of action is to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits providing one final opportunity to the assessee. 13. In view thereof, we set aside the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for all the years and remand the same to their file for denovo adjudication on merits. At the same time, we direct the assessee that this being the final opportunity, there must be compliance on merits before the first appellate authority. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass an order in terms of Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act within three months from receipt of this order.”
Respectfully following the aforesaid order, on the same parity of reasoning and as per similar terms, I set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matter back to its file for denovo adjudication while complying with the principles of natural justice. At the same time, it is directed that this being the final opportunity, the assessee shall duly comply with the hearing notices from the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC.
As per the aforesaid terms, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
12 Ravi Prakash Yadav Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai ITA No.527/RPR/2025
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 24th day of December, 2025.
Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 24th December, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.
आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur
