Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was delayed. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, explaining that a change of address and issues with the email provided by a consultant led to their unawareness of the proceedings and the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay and condoned it. It was also held that the CIT(A) had erred in passing an ex-parte order without properly adjudicating the grounds of appeal and in failing to provide a speaking order as required by Section 250(6) of the Act.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal and the validity of an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without proper adjudication and a speaking order.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250, 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 21.03.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT(A)-6, Chennai [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 18.12.2018 passed by learned ITO-3(3), Indore [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2016-17, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
None appeared nor any adjournment application is filed on behalf of assessee/appellant when the case is called. The speed post containing the notice sent by registry to the name & address given by assessee in Form No. 36 has been returned with the remark “unknown”. The Ld. DR is ready to represent the revenue/respondent. We, therefore, proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee/appellant on merit after considering the material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR.
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:
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, 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 Page 5 of 7 AY 2016-17 250(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.”. The assessee has also raised following grievance in Ground No. 2 of Appeal Memo:
2. Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961-Non-speaking and Ex- parte Order That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in disposing of the appeal in a summary manner without discussing the merits of the case or dealing with the written submissions and documentary evidence filed during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) failed to discharge the statutory obligation of passing a reasoned and speaking order as mandated under Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, appellant prays to restore the matter to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing proper opportunity of hearing.
Therefore, the bench proposed to remand this case to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The Ld. DR for revenue agreed to proposal of bench but made a request to direct the assessee to represent her case before CIT(A) 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 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 Page 6 of 7
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 13/01/2026