Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) which upheld additions made by the AO under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-appearance of the assessee. There was a short delay of 8 days in filing the present appeal before the ITAT.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a proper opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without deciding the appeal on merits, and whether the matter should be remanded to the AO for a fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 250(6)
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 B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal bearing DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1075173594(1) dated 28.03.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 11.05.2023 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:
Page 1 of 4
Barhattakar Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Raipur AY 2017-18 “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 ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,26,378/- on account of variation in respect of opening stock without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Id CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 62,72,767/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.The appellant carves leave to add, amend OR modify any of the grounds of appeal.”
2. There is a small delay of 8 days in filing present appeal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of case and the averments made by appellant in the application/affidavit for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. In view of the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387, wherein it has been held that the “technical considerations” should not prevail over the cause of “substantial justice”, we deem it fit to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 8 days in filing appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken for hearing.
3. Ld. AR for assessee submits 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. He further submits that the CIT(A) has simply confirmed the order passed by AO and thereby upheld
Page 2 of 4
Barhattakar Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Raipur AY 2017-18 the additions but the grounds/issues raised by assessee in first appeal requires an apt adjudication by CIT(A) on merit in accordance with provisions of 250(6) of the Act which 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.”. Ld. AR further submits that the assessment-order passed by AO is also a type of ex-parte wherein the AO has made additions for lack of details/documents. However, the assessee has subsequently collected all required details/documents and is ready and willing to make an effective representation before AO if an opportunity is given and prays that the present matter should be remanded to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication.
Ld. DR for revenue submits that he does not have any objection against remand but his request is to direct the assessee to represent case before AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments. Further, he requested the bench to impose a reasonable cost upon assessee.
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 AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee and subject to a cost of Rs. 2,500/- to be paid by assessee to Prime Minister National Relief Fund. The assessee shall submit a receipt of such payment to AO during proceedings. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an Page 3 of 4
Barhattakar Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Raipur AY 2017-18 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 AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose, subject to payment of cost by assessee as mentioned above.
Order pronounced in open court on 03/02/2026
Sd/- Sd/- (PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 03/02/2026 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 4 of 4