Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 against an ex-parte assessment order which added ₹81,73,610 due to cash deposits and non-response to notices. There was a 178-day delay in filing the appeal, primarily due to the assessee's serious illness and subsequent death. The CIT(A) had previously dismissed the appeal in limine due to the assessee's non-response to hearings.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the reasonable cause of the assessee's illness and death. Recognizing that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte, the Tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the legal heir a fair opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was set aside.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; Validity of ex-parte assessment and dismissal by CIT(A); Providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee's legal heir.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 144B, 148, 69, 69A, 56, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2015-16 is directed against the order dated 07.03.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 05.02.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act.
Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 178 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. An affidavit in this regard has been filed giving the reasons led to delay. Precisely, one of the main reason for the delay is serious illness and death of the assessee and his subsequent death and the tax matters were looked after by the tax consultant. Legal heir of the assessee was not communicated about the status of the impugned order.
After hearing both the sides and considering the averments made in the affidavit and also placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107) we find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeal within the time limit specified under the Act. We therefore condone the delay of 178 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee expired on 20.06.2025. Inadvertently, Form No.36 was filed in the name of the deceased assessee. Revised Form No.36 has now been filed by the legal heir Mr.Balu Sinnappa Waghmode. Reference made to the affidavit in support of condonation of delay in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal as well as before ld.CIT(A) and prayer made for restoration of the issues in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
With the assistance of both the sides, we find that the impugned order is also exparte and ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for one more opportunity to go before ld.CIT(A) to which ld. Departmental Representative raised no objection.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and no regular return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 was filed. Based on the information about cash deposit in the savings bank account held with Bank of Baroda, notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued but assessee failed to respond by filing any return of income and on subsequent dates of notice also assessee failed to respond resulting into passing of best judgment assessment and assessing of income at ₹81,73,610 by ld. AO making addition for the very same amount u/s.69, 69A and section 56 of the Act. Against the assessment order dated 05.02.2024 assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 11.03.2024 with a minor delay which was condoned by ld.CIT(A) but subsequently on the dates of hearing fixed on 07.02.2025, 17.02.2025 and 25.02.2025 assessee failed to respond and furnish any details. Ld.CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal applying the principle "Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura sub veniunt". Before us, prayer of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is only to afford one more opportunity for contending the issues raised in the instant appeal before ld.CIT(A). We note that the assessee has expired on 20.06.2025 after prolonged illness. Legal heir has also furnished revised Form No.36.
Under these given facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that assessee deserves fair opportunity of pleading its case on the grounds of appeal raised before ld.CIT(A). In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the case, the issues raised in the instant appeal are remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A). Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) shall decide the issues on merit in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 27th day of January, 2026.