Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's first appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance and failure to provide submissions, leading to an ex-parte order. The assessee filed a second appeal, explaining a delay in filing due to bonafide reasons and seeking an opportunity to present their case on merits.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it bonafide. It noted that the CIT(A)'s order was not on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, directing the assessee to cooperate fully.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) was justified, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case on merits.
Sections Cited
253, 143(3), 250, 246A, 80P
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
the order bearing Number:-ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1067153793(1) dated 30/07/2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned order”. The Relevant Assessment year is Page 1 of 10
Factual Matrix 2.1 That as and by way of an Assessment order made u/s 143(3) of the Act, the total income of the Assessee was computed & assessed at Rs. 7,28,899/-. ROI was of Rs. Nil claiming deduction u/s 80P of Rs. 19,79,677/-. The addition of Rs 1,44,837/- was made on account of interest on fixed deposit with nationalised bank and such income does not qualify for 80P deduction. The addition of Rs. 2,75,000/- was made on account of dividend income. Yet another addition of Rs. 3,09,062/- was made on account of income from “other activities”. That the aforesaid assessment order bears no:- ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019- 20/1019550986(1) and that the same is dated 30/10/2019 which is herein after referred to as the “impugned assessment order”
2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s Page 2 of 10
ADIM JATI SEVA SAHKRI SAMITI MYDT FOOLMAL A.Y.2017-18 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” had dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. The core grounds and reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal was as under:-
“4. Decision: 4.1 I have gone through the appeal filed by the appellant against order u/s 143(3) of the Act. The issue to be decided here is whether the AO is justified in disallowing the claim u/s. 80P of the Act. 4.2 In this regard, notice u/s 250 of the Act was issued to the appellant by the erstwhile Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC). Another notice u/s 250 of the Act was issued. Again one more notice u/s 250 of the Act was issued and duly served upon the appellant. For natural justice one more opportunity has been given to the appellant vide notice dated 19.07.2024 fixing the date of hearing on 29.07.2024. All the notices were duly served upon the appellant to its registered E-mail Id. The tabular form of the notices issued to the appellant is as under: Sr. No. Date of issue Compliance Status Remarks notice date 1 24.01.2021 08.02.2021 Served No reply 2 25.06.2024 04.07.2024 Served No reply 3 10.07.2024 18.07.2024 Served No reply 4 19.07.2024 (final 29.07.2024 Served No reply opportunity)
4.3 The appellant has not filed any submission till date in response to the above notices. Despite several opportunities given to the appellant to make submission in support of his claim, there is no response from the appellant. It is the appellant's plea that the A.O. has erred in rejected the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d). However, despite various opportunities given to the appellant, the appellant failed to comply with the said notices.
4.4 In view of the above, it appears that the non-compliance to notices is deliberate as all the notices have been duly served upon the appellant on the registered email. No response has been received from the appellant till date. It is reasonable to infer from the continued non-compliance that the appellant is not serious to pursue its appeal.”
2.3 The assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal in the form no. 36 against the “impugned order” which are as under:-
“1.The Id.CIT(A) was not justified in ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the appellant, without deciding the appeal on merits, and that a fair and meaningful opportunity was not available to the appellant to present his case. 2.The Id CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,28,900/- us 80P without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3.The appellant carves leave to add, amend OR modify any of the grounds of appeal.”
Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 29.01.2026 when the Ld. AR for & on behalf of the Assessee appeared before us & interalia contended that the “Impugned Order” is bad in law, illegal & not Proper. It is in the violation of the principles of natural justice. It therefore deserves to be set aside. It was next contended that the Page 4 of 10
ADIM JATI SEVA SAHKRI SAMITI MYDT FOOLMAL A.Y.2017-18 registry of this tribunal has calculated the delay of 320 days in filling the present second appeal. It was submitted that the “impugned order” is dated 30/07/2024 and the instant appeal ought to have been filed on or before 30/09/2024.
However the instant appeal was filed on 15/08/2024 resulting in delay of 319 days. A condonation of delay application along with affidavits in support are placed on record of this tribunal. With regard to delay it was submitted that delay was not intentional and there are no malafide conduct on the part of the assessee. The delay was bonafide.
It was further submitted that earlier manager of the assessee society was one Mr. Rajesh Vani who was not aware of the impugned order and that the same was not checked on the portal. The assessee’s counsel too failed to inform the assessee in this regard. On 17/12/2024 Shri Rajesh Vani was transferred and on 18/12/2024 a new manager Mr. Vijendra Singh Parmar took over who too was not aware about passing of the “impugned order”. However in August 2025 when counsel was filling the income tax return the assessee society came to know of the fact of the passing of Page 5 of 10 Rajesh Vani the earlier manager dt. 27/01/26 and that of new manager Mr. Vijendra Singh Parmar dt. 27/01/26. Copy of transfer order dt. 18/12/24 of Vijendra Singh Parmar was too relied upon. These affidavits and transfer order are part of condonation of delay application and were relied upon in the course of hearing and contents were read out of all the documents so placed on record. Per contra the Ld. DR for the revenue stated that he leaves the issue of condonation of delay on the wisdom of this tribunal. We after hearing both the parties condone the delay as sufficient cause is shown the delay is not deliberate. Reasons for delay are bonafidely explained. Appeal admitted and taken up for hearing.
3.2 The Ld. AR then invited our attention to internal page 1, unnumbered para 1 of the “impugned assessement order” and submitted that in the assessment proceedings only part compliance could be made by placing on record profit and loss a/c, balance sheet, trading a/c and the remaining compliance could not be made on details as sought by Ld.
ADIM JATI SEVA SAHKRI SAMITI MYDT FOOLMAL A.Y.2017-18 AO. Attention was then invited to the internal page 3 of the “impugned assessment order” were in it is recorded by the Ld. AO that the assessee has failed to furnish the evidence/ information in respect of claim for deduction u/s 80P. In brief the Ld. AR stated that during the assessment proceedings save and except few compliances as stated above, the other compliances could not be made. In so far as the “impugned order”is concerned it was submitted by Ld. AR that assessee society is located in deep rural areas of MP and so also it’s operations. The Ld. AR finally prayed that one more opportunity be provided so that orders of lower authorities at least could be on meritorious grounds and assessee in this regard would cooperate with the dept. of income tax. Per contra Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that heleaves the issue to the wisdom of the bench. Hearing was then concluded.
Observations Findings & conclusions
ADIM JATI SEVA SAHKRI SAMITI MYDT FOOLMAL A.Y.2017-18 4.1 We have to decide the legality, validity and proprietary of the “impugned order” basis records of the case & the rival submission canvassed before us.
4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case and have heard the submissions.
4.3 We basis records of the case & after hearing & upon examining the rival contentions of the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR canvassed before us, are of the considered opinion that In the “impugned assessment order” part compliance was made and now the assessee wants to make full compliance and is seeking a final opportunity. The Ld. AR has assured that if opportunity is provided all the necessary material, information would be furnished to the Ld. AO without fail & in time. The impugned order is not on merits too. In these facts and circumstances we set aside the impugned order as and by way of remand back to the file of Ld. AO on denovo basis. We direct the assessse to do full compliance before Ld. AO. Under the circumstances we direct the assessee to pay cost of Rs. 2500/- to the dept. of income tax by a challan
ADIM JATI SEVA SAHKRI SAMITI MYDT FOOLMAL A.Y.2017-18 under the category “others”. No credit of the said amount would be available to the assessee against any taxes, penalty, interest etc.
4.4 In the premises drawn up by us, we set aside the “impugned order” as and by way of remand back to the file of Ld. AO on denovo basis.
Order 5.1 In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by way of remand back to the file of the Ld. AO with cost (supra).
5.2 The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Pronounced in open court on 06.02.2026.