KAMALESH KUMAR DEWANGAN, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

3 Kamlesh Kumar Dewangan Vs. ITO-2(2), Raipur & 515/RPR/2025 reasons, there is no malafide/deliberate intention of the assessee, it is requested to your Honors to condone the impugned delay of 363 days & obliged.

4 Kamlesh Kumar Dewangan Vs. ITO-2(2), Raipur & 515/RPR/2025

“6. During appellate proceedings, a notice under section 250 of the Act was issued for the first time on 22/01/2021, fixing the date of hearing on or before 08/02/2021. The appellant did not reply. Further, other notices u/s. 250 of the Act were issued to the appellant on 19/08/2021 & 01/05/2024, fixing the date of hearing on or before 24/08/2021 & 13/05/2024 respectively. These times also, the appellant did not reply or sought any adjournment so far. I am therefore of the view that the appellant has been given sufficient opportunities to represent his case, but he failed to avail them. 6.1 In the appellate proceedings, the initial burden lies on the appellant to prove that the facts and the findings of the Assessing Officer are incorrect with the help of verifiable documents. If the appellant fails to disprove or rebut with cogent evidence such facts and findings, no interference is required. In this case, the appellant did not choose to avail the opportunities in the appellate proceedings which has lead to the only conclusion that he had no evidence or explanation against the order of the Assessing Officer.” xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 9.1 During appellate proceedings, appellant has not submitted any document in support of his contention, except making a statement in his statement of facts that "during the year total deposit in saving bank account of the appellant was Rs. 11,50,217/- and out of which cash deposit was Rs.10,97,467/-. Most of the deposit entries in the bank accounts are petty deposits of Rs.5000/- to 20000/- only. There is no deposit entry of big amount in a day. It may also be noted that the peak credit during the year of above bank account of the appellant is Rs. 67,386/- only." In absence of documentary evidence in the form of bank statement and other supporting documents, the contention of the appellant cannot be verified and thus there arise no reason to take a different view from that taken in the assessment order. Considering the above, the appeal is dismissed.”

6 Kamlesh Kumar Dewangan Vs. ITO-2(2), Raipur & 515/RPR/2025 In so far the appeal filed by the assessee in for A.Y.2012-13, it is evident from Paras 6, 6.1 & 9.1 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC order that since there was no compliance from the assessee, therefore, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC dismissed the appeal vide an ex-parte order. For the sake of brevity, the same are only referred to and not being extracted.

7 Kamlesh Kumar Dewangan Vs. ITO-2(2), Raipur & 515/RPR/2025

“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 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. Recently, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the 9. case of Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni Vs. Income-tax

8 Kamlesh Kumar Dewangan Vs. ITO-2(2), Raipur & 515/RPR/2025 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 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

9 Kamlesh Kumar Dewangan Vs. ITO-2(2), Raipur & 515/RPR/2025 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.

12. 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 10 Kamlesh Kumar Dewangan Vs. ITO-2(2), Raipur & 515/RPR/2025 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) 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.

11 Kamlesh Kumar Dewangan Vs. ITO-2(2), Raipur & 515/RPR/2025