PRADEEP JAIN,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN
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
Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:
This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of
the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act
for the sake of convenience & brevity]. The Assessee is
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.
Page 1 of 8
Pradeep Jain ITA No. 543/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2011-12
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
Page 2 of 8
Pradeep Jain ITA No. 543/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2011-12
08.08.2024 14.08.2024 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.”
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
Pradeep Jain ITA No. 543/Ind/2025 - 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
Pradeep Jain ITA No. 543/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2011-12
assessee. The assessee then appointed new Tax consultant.
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
Pradeep Jain ITA No. 543/Ind/2025 - 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
Pradeep Jain ITA No. 543/Ind/2025 - 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
Pradeep Jain ITA No. 543/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2011-12
4.4 In the premises drawn up by us we set aside the
“impugned order” & remand the case back to the file of the Ld.
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.
Sd/- Sd/-
(BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Indore Dated : 30/01/2026 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 COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 8 of 8
