Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, both of which were delayed by 108 and 107 days respectively. The Ld. CIT(A) had previously not condoned a 41-day delay and passed an ex-parte, non-speaking order, leading to the current appeals against orders under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Held
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the condonation of delay in filing appeals and whether the Ld. CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by passing an ex-parte and non-speaking order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 147, Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:
Captioned two appeals filed by the same assessee, pertaining to different assessment year (AY) 2016-17 & 2017-18, are directed against the separate orders under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAC) Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)’], both dated 30.07.2025, which in turn arise out of separate assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, both dated 11.03.2022.
& 50/Rjt/2026 Sureshbhai T. Kakadia
The appeal filed by the assessee in 108 days, and the appeal filed by the assessee in is barred by limitation by 107 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condonation the delay.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that before the Ld.CIT(A), there was a minor delay of 41 days, which was not condoned by the Ld.CIT(A), despite of being explained sufficient cause. The assessee submitted that during the appellate proceeding the assessee was not feeling well and after passing the order of the assessing officer, the assessee did not communicate properly with his advocate, therefore there was minor delay of 41 days, which may kindly be condone, in the interest of justice, and matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the Ld. Counsel should undertake the responsibility to file the relevant documents and evidences before the Ld.CIT(A).
I have heard the Ld. DR and note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.
I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 the Act and the Page 2 of Sureshbhai T. Kakadia impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.
Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. I note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes
Order is pronounced in the open court on 06/02/2026.