CHANDUMAL THARWANI,BETUL vs. DCIT ITARSI, ITARSI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3/IND/2024Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The matter was then remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT after a delay of 67 days. The assessee's first appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte due to non-prosecution, and the assessment order was also passed ex-parte by the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 28.05.2024Pronounced: 29.05.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

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

1.

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 29.08.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 22.12.2019 passed by learned DCIT/ACIT, Itarsi [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal.

2.

The registry has informed that the present appeal is filed after a delay of 67 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed following application for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons of delay:

Chandumal Tharwani, Betul Chandumal Tharwani, Betul Chandumal Tharwani, Betul

3.

The reasons submitted by assessee in above application are explained by Ld. AR in open court. After deliberation, it is found that the various difficulties narrated by assessee in Para No. 2 to 4 of application adequately demonstrate a ‘sufficient cause’ for occurrence of delay. Finding strength therein, Ld. DR for revenue did not show any objection against condonation of delay. 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 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 drew us to the impugned order passed by CIT(A) and showed that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte qua assessee due to non-prosecution by assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the reason of non-prosecution of first appeal by assessee is also same as narrated in condonation application.

Therefore, the assessee should be given an opportunity to represent his case before the lower authorities. Ld. DR for revenue proposed that the case of assessee should be restored to AO because the AO has also passed ex-parte assessment-order due to non-reply by assessee to show cause notice. Ld. AR

Chandumal Tharwani, Betul agreed to the proposal of Ld. DR. In view of consensus by both sides and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to give one more opportunity to assessee so that the assessee can represent his case before AO for a proper adjudication. Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

5.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 29.05.2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →