Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A), which upheld the Assessing Officer's order. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 11,78,182/- on account of undisclosed sales. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's first appeal, citing non-pursuance and lack of response during appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal found that the "Impugned order" was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to significant delays in hearing dates and the assessee's inability to attend the first hearing due to COVID-19. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)'s order is in violation of natural justice due to significant delays in proceedings. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
253, 143(3), 148, 246A, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-
ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1068702795(1) dated 14.09.2024 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 2011-12 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011.
Factual Matrix 2.1 That as and by way of an Assessment order made u/s 143(3) rws 148 of the Act, the total income of the Assessee was computed & assessed at Rs. 15,84,530/-. The total income as per the return of income filed u/s 148 was at Rs.4,06,350/-. The addition/variation of Rs.11,78,182/- was made as undisclosed sales. The aforesaid “Assessment order” is dated 28.12.2018 which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned Assessment Order”
2.2 That the Assessee being Aggrieved by the aforesaid the “Impugned Assessment Order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the 1st “Impugned Order” has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on the grounds & reasons stated therein. The core grounds & reasons for the dismissal of the 1st appeal was as under:-
“3. During appellant proceedings, notices for hearing (ITNS37) were issued on various dated as under: Date of issue of Date of hearing Mode remarks notice of service 15.01.2021 01.02.2021 Online No response 30.07.2024 07.08.2024 Online No response
The facts of the case as noted above are that the appellant has not pursued the appeal despite being granted opportunities as elaborated in para 5 above. No details, documents or submissions have been provided to come to any conclusion other than those arrived at by the assessing officer in the assessment order. During the appellate proceedings the appellant was given opportunities to put forth his case, but he did not upload any response despite service of notice(s) which leaves no reason for the undersigned to interfere with the order of the AO.”
2.3 The Assessee being Aggrieved by the “Impugned Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in the form No. 36 against the “Impugned Order” which are as under:-
“1.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of Assessing Officer of making additions of Rs. 11,78,182/- on account of undisclosed sales treating the sale return made by the appellant as unexplained. 3.The appellant craves leave to add any new ground of appeal OR alter, amend OR delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”
3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 14.01.2026 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 Page 3 of 8 A.Y.2011-12 the violation of the principles of natural justice. It therefore deserves to be set aside. It was next contended that the registry of this Tribunal has pointed out delay of 201days in filing the instant second appeal. It was submitted that the “Impugned Order” is dated 14.09.2024 & instant appeal ought to have been filed on or before 14.11.2024 however the instant appeal was filed on 19.06.2025. A condonation of delay application along with an affidavit in support is placed on record of this Tribunal. With regard to the delay it was submitted that the Assessee had duly supplied all the details & documents to his erstwhile counsel CA Jatin Pamnani in order to file the necessary submission before the Ld. CIT(A) during the appeal proceedings. The erstwhile CA of the assessee neither filed any submission before the ld.
CIT(A) nor made the assessee aware of the fact that an ex- parte of Ld. CIT(A) order has been passed in the case. It was submitted that after being followed up by department for the payment of outstanding demand by the department of income tax the assessee came to know about that an ex- parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) has been passed against the Page 4 of 8 It was submitted that delay in filling the instant appeal is not wilful & that there is no malafide intention. The delay is not deliberate. The prayer was made to condone the delay.
An affidavit dated 19.06.2025 in support of COD application was too relied upon. Per contra the Ld. DR for the Revenue stated that the department has no objection if the delay is condoned & left the issue to the wisdom of this Tribunal to take appropriate call in this regard. We after hearing both the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR & after perusing the COD application & an affidavit in support condone the delay & admit the appeal as sufficient cause is shown. No malafide intention or wilful negligence is seen by us. Appeal is admitted & taken up for hearing.
3.2 The Ld. AR then contended that the “impugned order” is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice & should therefore be set aside by this Tribunal. It was submitted that first hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) was fixed on 01.02.2021 which was during covid times. The second hearing was fixed on 07.08.2024 & the third one on 14.08.2024 i.e. within one week.
Page 5 of 8 A.Y.2011-12 Further hearings were fixed after nearly 3 years. It was therefore submitted that there is violation of the principles of naturl justice rendering the “impugned order” as illegal & bad in law. It was also submitted that the when the “impugned assessment order” was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act the old counsel was in picture who was non cooporative towards the assessee for no fault of the assessee. In the overall facts & circumstances it was finally prayed that the “impugned order” be set aside & the matter be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A). Per contra the Ld. DR appearing for the revenue contended that the Department has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) & left the issue to this Tribunal to take appropriate call according to law.
Observations Findings & conclusions 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.
Page 6 of 8 A.Y.2011-12 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 the “impugned order” is passed in the violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as the first hearing on 01.02.2021 could not been attended to by the assessee due to covid.
Thereafter a lapse of nearly 3-1/2 years second hearing was fixed on 07.08.2024. The third hearing was for 14.08.2024 in between time gap is only of one week. We therefore are of the considered opinion that the “impugned order” is bad in law & violative of the principles of natural justice. The assessee through his Ld. AR has made a grievance of it which is not objected to by the Ld. DR for revenue. In the circumstances we set aside the “impugned order” as & by way of remand back to the file of the CIT(A) with admonition to the assessee to cooperate with the department & to positively attend hearing & file submissions, details as & when fixed & /or called upon to do so. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking & well-reasoned order basis merits as contemplated in law by virtue of section 250(6) of the Act.
Page 7 of 8 CIT(A) on denovo basis, who shall now pass a speaking & well- reasoned order.
5 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. CIT(A) with directions as aforesaid.
5.2. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Pronounced in open court on 30.01.2026.