MAMTA DHOLPURE,INDORE vs. ITO 3(3), INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 712/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 January 2026AY 2016-177 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal relied on Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after 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 also noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without a reasoned adjudication, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee's ground of appeal regarding the non-speaking and ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was also considered. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and ensure participation in hearings, with liberty to the CIT(A) to pass an order in accordance with law if the assessee sought unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mamta Dholpure, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A)'s order arose from an assessment order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Section 143(3) for Assessment Year 2016-17. The appeal before the ITAT was delayed by 84 days. The assessee submitted an affidavit explaining the delay, stating that communications were sent to an incorrect email ID used by her consultant, leading to her unawareness of the proceedings. She only became aware of the ex-parte appellate order when informed about penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order because the assessee made no submissions despite opportunities. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was filed after the due date of 20.05.2025.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation of sufficient cause, and whether the ITAT should admit the appeal under Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by adopting a justice-oriented approach as per the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others. Assessee's contention: The delay was bonafide and unintentional, caused by communications being sent to an incorrect email ID used by her consultant, resulting in her unawareness of the proceedings. She sought condonation of delay based on these circumstances. Revenue's contention: The learned Senior Departmental Representative for the revenue did not object to the condonation of delay and left it to the wisdom of the bench. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal ex-parte and in a summary manner without discussing the merits of the case or dealing with the documentary evidence, thereby failing to discharge the statutory obligation of passing a reasoned and speaking order as mandated under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order as required by Section 250(6) and erred in disposing of the appeal summarily without considering the merits and evidence. The assessee prayed for the matter to be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper opportunity of hearing. Revenue's contention: The learned Senior Departmental Representative agreed to the proposal of the bench to remand the case to the CIT(A) but requested a direction for the assessee to represent her case diligently and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c),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 Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.01.2026Pronounced: 13.01.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R

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

1.

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).

2.

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.

3.

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:

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

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.

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 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

8.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 13/01/2026

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →