Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT which was delayed by 84 days. The delay was attributed to the previous counsel's failure to communicate tax department notices and orders. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order because the assessee did not make submissions despite opportunities.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay finding 'sufficient cause' and a justice-oriented approach. It was held that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, hence the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal and validity of ex-parte order by CIT(A) without reasonable opportunity.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 143(3), 253(5), 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 dated 25.10.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 26.03.2022 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2018-19, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
Page 1 of 6
Shri Avinash Bansal ITA No. 682/Ind/2025 - AY 2018-19
The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 84 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:
Page 2 of 6 Shri Avinash Bansal ITA No. 682/Ind/2025 - AY 2018-19 Page 3 of 6 Shri Avinash Bansal ITA No. 682/Ind/2025 - AY 2018-19
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 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.
It further emerged during hearing 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. However, Ld. AR for assessee referred Para 5.1 of impugned order and submitted that the CIT(A)
has given only three opportunities on 03.06.2024, 10.06.2024 & 08.07.2024 within a very short span of about one month and therefore there was no Page 4 of 6
Shri Avinash Bansal ITA No. 682/Ind/2025 - AY 2018-19 reasonable opportunity given to assessee. Further referring to Para No. 5.3 of impugned order, Ld. AR also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has simply confirmed the order passed by AO and thereby upheld 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.”. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this matter ought to remanded to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
Ld. DR for revenue agreed to the request of Ld. AR for assessee but made a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.
In view of above and 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 CIT(A), we remand this matter back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The CIT(A) 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 CIT(A)
and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Page 5 of 6
Shri Avinash Bansal ITA No. 682/Ind/2025 - AY 2018-19
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 13/01/2026
Sd/- Sd/- (PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 13/01/2026 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 COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 6 of 6