Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a semi-literate farmer, filed an appeal before the ITAT with a significant delay of 412 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to non-receipt of notices and the first appellate order from their previous counsel, making the subsequent assessment and first appellate orders ex-parte.
Held
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation as a sufficient cause based on a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication in the interest of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal was to be condoned due to sufficient cause, and if the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities warranted a remand for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 250(6), 253(5)
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 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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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