Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order for AY 2017-18, where the assessment order was passed ex parte. There was a delay of 1154 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), which the CIT(A) did not condone. The assessee had previously filed a revision petition under Section 264 and a writ petition before the High Court.
Held
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The issues were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to the ex-parte assessment and the requirement for factual verification. This restoration is conditional upon the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association within 60 days; failure to do so will result in the CIT(A) order being confirmed.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) and restoration of issues from an ex-parte assessment to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
Sections Cited
Section 264
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessee represented by Shri Vinay Jalal, A.R. Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 10/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 10/10/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2016-17/10225915 dated 23/08/2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18.
Shri Vinay Khandelwal, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR appeared for the revenue.
It was submitted by ld AR that the assessment order was passed ex parte. The assessee had filed revision petition before the ld. CIT under Section 264 and evidences were produced before him. However, the ld. CIT had not granted the requisite relief, consequently, the assessee had filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and after getting the necessary relief from the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, has filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was a submission that this had led to a delay of 1154 days. It was a submission that the ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay even though the reasons were explained. It was a submission that the delay had occurred on account of mistaken forum for seeking relief. It was a submission that the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) may be condoned and the issues of the appeal may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer and the assessee would cooperate in the set aside proceedings.
In reply, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that the issues may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) after condoning the delay.
We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the assessee has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Consequently, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and we do so. It is further noticed that the issues are liable to be examined by the Assessing Officer in so far as the assessment order is an ex parte order and this case requires substantial verification of facts. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity being heard subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- deposited with Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association to be paid within 60 days from the date of issue of this order. In the event, the cost is not paid and the receipt is not produced before the Assessing Officer, at the date of first hearing, the order of the ld CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.