RAVINDRA AWASTHI,INDORE vs. ITO 2(1), INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 191/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 January 2026AY 2010-116 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 412 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had a "sufficient cause" for the delay. The Tribunal relied on Section 253(5) of the Act, which empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after the expiry of the prescribed time if there is a sufficient cause. It also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others, emphasizing the preference for substantial justice over technical considerations. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that the CIT(A)'s order might not have fully complied with Section 250(6) and that the assessment order was ex-parte. Therefore, to uphold the principle of natural justice and without causing prejudice to the revenue, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 2,500/- was imposed on the assessee, payable to the "Prime Minister National Relief Fund", as a pre-condition for availing the benefit of fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to participate diligently in the proceedings before the AO, and the AO was instructed to give a fresh opportunity of hearing and pass an order uninfluenced by the earlier order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ravindra Awasthi, a semi-literate farmer, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi. This order arose from an assessment order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO)-2(1), Indore, under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2010-11. The appeal was delayed by 412 days. The assessee explained the delay by stating that he is semi-literate, not conversant with tax laws, and that notices and the first appeal order were delivered to his former counsel's email, who did not share them. He became aware of the order only when contacted for demand recovery. The Revenue did not object to the condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 412 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the assessee's claim of being semi-literate, not conversant with tax laws, and not receiving notices from his former counsel (Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The delay was due to inadvertence and bonafide reasons, as the assessee is a semi-literate farmer and did not receive communication from his previous counsel. The ITAT should adopt a justice-oriented approach as per the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not object to the condonation of delay and left it to the wisdom of the bench. 2. Whether the order of the CIT(A) is liable to be set aside for non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. Assessee's Contention: The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution but failed to comply with the mandate of Section 250(6) by not stating the points for determination, decision, and reasons in writing. The assessment order was also ex-parte under Section 144, making it fit to restore the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, with the assessee willing to make a proper representation. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue agreed to the prayer for restoration to the AO but requested a direction for the assessee to represent the case diligently without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 250(6),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 Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijyavargiya, ARs
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13.01.2026Pronounced: 22.01.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R

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

1.

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 13.09.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 05.12.2017 passed by learned ITO-2(1), Indore [“AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2010-11, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

Page 1 of 6 AY 2010-11 2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 412 days and therefore time-barred. The assessee has filed an application/ affidavit for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference:

3.

The averments made by assessee in above affidavit, 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

Page 3 of 6 AY 2010-11 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.

4.

Ld. AR for assessee submits that the section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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.”. He further submits that in present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal although due to non-prosecution by assessee on the dates of hearing but still without complying with the mandate of section 250(6). Therefore, the impugned first appeal-order passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside.

5.

Ld. AR further submits that the assessment-order passed by AO is also ex-parte u/s 144, therefore it would be fit to restore this appeal at the level of AO for a fresh adjudication. Ld. AR acknowledges that the assessee is ready and willing to make a proper representation before AO if an Page 4 of 6

6.

Ld. DR for revenue agreed to the submission and prayer of Ld. AR but made a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

7.

In view of above, 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. However, in order to offset the revenue’s efforts, we impose a cost of Rs. 2,500/- to be paid by assessee to “Prime Minister National Relief Fund”. The assessee shall submit a proof of such payment to AO during proceedings. This payment of cost shall be a pre-condition for assessee to avail the benefit of fresh adjudication from AO. The AO 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 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.

Order pronounced in open court on 22/01/2026

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →