ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

PDF
ITA 595/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 February 2026AY 2014-159 pages
AI SummaryN/A

Facts

The assessee filed four appeals for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 with delays ranging from 347 to 701 days. The delay was caused by a severe road accident, prolonged medical treatments including multiple surgeries, and continuous financial distress due to bank recovery proceedings and auction attempts of his residential house. The CIT(A) had dismissed the first appeals due to non-prosecution without passing a speaking order as mandated by Section 250(6).

Held

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of genuine physical and financial hardships as "sufficient cause" under Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act. Acknowledging that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) by not passing a reasoned order, the Tribunal remanded all four appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing that a proper hearing opportunity be provided to the assessee.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing appeals before the ITAT should be condoned due to assessee's medical and financial hardships. 2. Whether the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution without a reasoned order under Section 250(6) is valid.

Sections Cited

Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 144, Section 254, Section 250(6), Section 253(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per Bench:

The captioned four (4) appeals are filed by assessee, the details are as

under:

ITA No. AY Impugned order Original proceeding Delay 1 593/Ind/2025 2013-14 Order of first-appeal dated Assessment-order 701 09.06.2023 passed by dated 27.09.2021 days CIT(A), National Faceless passed by AO, Appeal Centre, bearing DIN: National Faceless ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- Assessment Centre 24/1053628875(1) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254

Page 1 of 9

Anil Turakhia ITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025- AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15

2 594/Ind/2025 2013-14 Order of first-appeal dated Assessment-order 347 28.05.2024 passed by dated 27.09.2021 days CIT(A), National Faceless passed by AO, Appeal Centre, bearing DIN: National Faceless ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Assessment Centre 25/1065196815(1) u/s 147 r.w.s. 144

3 595/Ind/2025 2014-15 Order of first-appeal dated Assessment-order 701 09.06.2023 passed by dated 27.09.2021 days CIT(A), National Faceless passed by AO, Appeal Centre, bearing DIN: National Faceless ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- Assessment Centre 24/1053629319(1) u/s 147 r.w.s. 144

4 596/Ind/2025 2014-15 Order of first-appeal dated Assessment-order 347 28.05.2024 passed by dated 15.09.2021 days CIT(A), National Faceless passed by AO, Appeal Centre, bearing DIN: National Faceless ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Assessment Centre 25/1065196538(1) u/s 144 r.w.s. 254

2.

Since these appeals involve identical facts and issues, they were heard

together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.

3.

The registry has informed that these appeals have been filed after

delay of days as mentioned in the last column of the Table in earlier Para No.

1.

Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed

applications/affidavits in all these matters for condonation of delay. The

applications/affidavits filed by assessee are identical, therefore we re-

produce below one of those:

Page 2 of 9

Anil Turakhia ITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025- AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Page 3 of 9

Anil Turakhia ITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025- AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Page 4 of 9

Anil Turakhia ITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025- AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Page 5 of 9

Anil Turakhia ITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025- AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15

4.

The averments made by assessee in above application, which are self-

explanatory and which do not require repetition, were discussed. The Ld. AR

for assessee explained the various physical and financial setbacks/

challenges faced and still being faced by assessee due to which the delays

have occurred in filing these appeals. Ld. AR, with folded hands on behalf of

assessee, made a humble prayer to consider assessee’s situation liberally

and judicially and condone delays. Ld. DR for revenue, being fair enough,

does not have any objection if the bench condones delay and accordingly left

it to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by

assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the

assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present

appeals. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit

an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for

not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also a settled position by

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and

others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice

and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of

substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented

approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a

judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.

Page 6 of 9

Anil Turakhia ITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025- AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15

5.

Ld. AR next submitted that the section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act,

1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the

appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the

decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. He submitted that in

present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeals although

due to non-prosecution by assessee on the dates of hearing but still without

complying with the mandate of section 250(6). Therefore, the impugned first

appeal-orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside. In so far as the

reasoning of non-prosecution before CIT(A) is concerned, Ld. AR narrated

the very same physical and financial setbacks/challenges faced by assessee

as stated by assessee in the applications for condonation of delay. However,

Ld. AR acknowledged, that the assessee is having in his possession all

required details/documents and is willing and ready to make a proper

representation before CIT(A) if an opportunity is given and hence prays that

in the interest of justice, these matters ought to be remanded to CIT(A) for

adjudication afresh.

6.

Ld. DR for revenue agreed to the submission of Ld. AR but made a

request to direct the assessee to represent his case before CIT(A) and do not

seek unnecessary adjournments.

7.

In view of above submissions of parties, having regard to the principle

of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be

caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of CIT(A), we

Page 7 of 9

Anil Turakhia ITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025- AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15

remand these matters back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The

CIT(A) shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass

appropriate order(s) uninfluenced by his earlier order(s).

8.

We also find that the assessee has been suffering from physical and

financial challenges. Therefore, we are not imposing any cost upon assessee

although there might be some element of lethargy on the part of assessee in

making representation before lower authorities. However, we direct the

assessee to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may

be fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which

the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order(s) in accordance with

law. Ordered accordingly.

9.

Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 19/02/2026

Sd/- sd/- (PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Indore

िदनांक/ Dated : 19/02/2026

Patel/Sr. PS

Page 8 of 9

Anil Turakhia ITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025- AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYSenior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 9 of 9

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE | BharatTax