ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE
Facts
The assessee filed four appeals for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 with delays ranging from 347 to 701 days. The delays were attributed to a series of severe medical emergencies, including an accident, multiple surgeries, and prolonged bed rest, coupled with significant financial distress and coercive bank recovery proceedings. The CIT(A) had dismissed the initial appeals due to non-prosecution without issuing a reasoned order as required by law.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, recognizing the assessee's documented medical and financial hardships as sufficient cause. It found that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals without complying with the requirements of Section 250(6) to pass a speaking order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the cases for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to actively participate and not seek unnecessary adjournments.
Key Issues
1. Whether delay in filing appeals due to medical and financial hardships should be condoned. 2. Whether CIT(A) orders dismissing appeals for non-prosecution without proper reasoning comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), Section 144, Section 147, 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
Since these appeals involve identical facts and issues, they were heard
together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
