RAMRATI SAHU,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 34/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 February 2026AY 2014-157 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's age, unfamiliarity with electronic communication, and the demise of her earlier counsel. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits. Considering the assessee's request for a fresh adjudication and the revenue's consent, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessee an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee is cautioned to remain vigilant and ensure participation in future hearings. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ramrati Sahu, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi. This order arose from an assessment order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the DCIT-4(1), Bhopal, under Section 263 read with Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal was filed with a delay of 129 days, for which the assessee sought condonation. The assessee also submitted written submissions. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had decided the first appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with hearing notices, despite opportunities given. The assessee's written submissions detailed the reasons for the delay and the merits of the case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the disallowance of exemption under Section 54B claimed at Rs.2,01,88,930/- is bad and unjustified and should be deleted? The assessee argued that the disallowance of exemption under Section 54B and its addition to the total income by the Assessing Officer (AO) were disputed. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54B for the purchase of agricultural land against the sale consideration received from selling plots demarcated on agricultural land, contending that the AO disallowed this exemption on the grounds that the plots were not exploited for agricultural operations. The assessee also argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits, which is contrary to statutory requirements and the precedent in Premkumar Arjundhra (HUF) [2016] 240 Taxman 133, which mandates disposal of appeals on merits. The revenue did not present any arguments on the merits of the case before the ITAT, having not objected to the condonation of delay and leaving the decision to the Tribunal's wisdom.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54B,Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 253(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.01.2026Pronounced: 03.02.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal bearing DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066160068(1) dated 27.06.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 18.12.2019 passed by learned DCIT-4(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 263 r.w.s. 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2014-15, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:

“1. That the disallowance of exemption u/s 54B claimed at Rs.2,01,88,930/- be held to be bad and unjustified and be deleted. 2. In the alternative and without prejudice to the ground stated above, the disallowance made in the relevant year be held to be high, unreasonable and unjustified and be suitably reduced. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any Ground of Appeal before or during the course of appellate proceedings.”

2. None appeared nor any adjournment application is filed on behalf of assessee/appellant when the case is called, although the notices of hearing were served upon assessee and in past the assessee has filed a written- application for grant of adjournment which was allowed. Further, the assessee has filed a “Written-Submission” for consideration of bench, which is available in case-file. The Ld. DR is also ready to represent the revenue/ respondent. We, therefore, proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee/appellant on merit after considering the material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR.

3.

The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 129 days and therefore time-barred. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference:

4.

The averments made by assessee in above application, which are self- explanatory and which do not require repetition, were discussed and the Ld. DR for revenue 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 appeal. 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.

5.

It further emerged during hearing that the CIT(A) has decided first- appeal ex-parte qua assessee for the reason that the assessee did not make any submission before him despite opportunities given. However, the assessee’s grievances are substantial which require an apt adjudication by CIT(A) on the basis of information and documents. The assessee has filed following Written-Submission:

6.

Thus, the assessee is requesting to remand this matter to the file of CIT(A) for deciding afresh. The assessee is also willing to make a Page 6 of 7 AY 2014-15 representation before CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice and with the consent of Ld. DR for revenue, we remand this case to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed 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 in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

7.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 03/02/2026

More judgments on Section 54B

All 814 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →