Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order from the CIT(A) which was 57 days late. The assessee's counsel explained that the delay was due to the assessee's death during the CIT(A) proceedings, leading to a lack of communication and awareness of the order by the legal heir. The CIT(A) order was also an ex-parte order.
Held
The tribunal condoned the 57-day delay, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's death and the resulting family uncertainty. It also set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for de novo adjudication, emphasizing the violation of natural justice as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the condonation of a 57-day delay in filing the appeal and whether the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice, warranting a remand for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
सुनवाईक�तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 13/01/2026 घोषणाक�तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 13/01/2026 ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:
The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad/ National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 13.08.2025 arising in the matter of assessment order dated 13.09.2022 passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2020-21.
The appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2020-21 is barred by limitation by 57 days. The assessee moved a petition for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee explained the reasons for delay stating that order of the Ld.CIT(A) was received late and there was no communication between the assessee and his advocate. Besides, during the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee himself died on 13.06.2024, the death certificate of the assessee has been produced before the Bench by the Ld.Counsel. Since the assessee himself died on 13.06.2024, therefore, there was complete uncertainty environment in the family, hence, the legal heir of the assessee did not know about the passing of the order by the Ld.CIT(A), hence such minor delay has occurred. Therefore, the Ld.Counsel prayed the Bench that the delay may be condoned, in the interest of justice.
On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay.
I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. I have also gone through the petition of condonation of delay and Affidavit submitted by the assessee for condonation of delay. I note that during the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee himself died, therefore, there is delay of 57 days, hence I find that it is sufficient cause to condone the delay, therefore, I note that the reasons given in the Affidavit and condonation of delay were convincing in nature and the reasons stated shows reasonably sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. I having heard both the parties and after having gone through the Affidavit as well as the condonation of delay petition, I am of the considered view that in the interest of justice, delay deserve to be condoned. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.
At the outset itself, on merit, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account Page 2 of 4 of violation of principle of natural justice. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the Ld. first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee.
The ld. DR for the Revenue did not have any objection if the matter is restored back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).
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 143(3) 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.
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 Page 3 of 4 the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 13/01/2026