Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a 64-day delay, which was attributed to the notice and appellate order being sent to the erstwhile tax consultant's email. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance with hearing notices. The assessee sought condonation of delay and a fresh opportunity to present the case on merits.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 64-day delay, finding no deliberate misconduct. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee a final opportunity to comply with hearing notices.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the condonation of a 64-day delay in filing an appeal and whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(Appeals) without the assessee's representation should be set aside for de novo adjudication.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM
The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 19.09.2025 for the assessment year 2014-15 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
2. At the very outset, it is noted that there is delay of 64 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. That explaining the reasons for such delay and praying for condonation of the same, the assessee had filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit, dated 10.02.2026. The relevant contents of the said affidavit are extracted as follows:
3. I have carefully perused the contents of the affidavit and condonation petition and heard the submissions of the parties herein. In my considered view, there is no deliberate or malafide conduct on the part of the assessee, if any, for late filing of this appeal. That as evident from the supporting documents placed on record, the notice and the appellate order were sent to the email id of the erstwhile tax consultant of the assessee. The fact of the matter is that the assessee came to know about the said delay of 64 days only from the present counsel when issue letter for penalty notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was received in the email id of the present counsel. These facts are emanating from the relevant documents placed on record which have been annexed a/w. the affidavit. Considering the ratio laid down in the judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC); (ii) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.
4 Ramesh Panjwani Vs. ITO, Dhamtari (C.G.)
26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (iii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, I hereby condone the delay of 64 days involved in the present appeal and the matter is heard on merits.
That so far as merits of the matter are concerned, it is noted that an ex-parte order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC due to non- compliance by the assessee. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that one final opportunity may be provided to the assessee in the interest of principles of natural justice and the matter may be remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC so that the assessee can represent the matter on merits. The relevant para of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC regarding ex- parte order is extracted as follows: “4(a). Subsequently, during the pendency of appeal, appellant was issued various notices of hearing u/s. 250 of the I.T Act dated 01.03.2025 (Enablement of Communication hearing notice), 17.07.2025, 07.08.2025, 13.08.2025 and latest hearing notice dated 11.09.2025 posting the appeal for hearing/filing submissions on or before 16.09.2025. For all these hearing notices, appellant could not make any submissions in spite of availing sufficient time and opportunities. From the fact of appellant's non-response to various notices, it is clear that apparently, appellant has no specific submissions to file to pursue the pending appeal and accordingly, appellant's appeal needs to be considered as per the facts available on record and on merits. As appellant failed to avail the opportunities offered on various occasions
5 Ramesh Panjwani Vs. ITO, Dhamtari (C.G.) from time to time, it is understood that appellant is not keen to pursue the appeal as per law and accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution by the appellant. The following citations/decisions of Hon'ble Adjudicating Authorities clearly envisage for dismissal of appellant's appeal on appellant's failure to prosecute/pursue the pending appeal in spite of availing sufficient time and opportunities accordingly, appellant's appeal is not maintainable.”
The Ld. Sr. DR has fairly conceded that the matter may be adjudicated denovo on merits before the first appellate authority providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
That since as per the factual spectrum and that an ex-parte order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC as there was no compliance from the assessee, in such scenario, in the interest of principles of natural justice, I follow the ratio laid down by the ITAT, “Division Bench”, Raipur in the cases of Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy./ACIT, Central Circle-2, Naya Raipur, IT(SS)A Nos. 1 to 6, 8 & 9/RPR/2025, dated 20.03.2025 wherein the Tribunal had dealt with similar issue on the same parameters of ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. Accordingly, on same parity of reasoning and on similar terms, I set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matter back to its file for denovo adjudication while complying with the principles of natural justice. At the same time, it is directed that 6 Ramesh Panjwani Vs. ITO, Dhamtari (C.G.)
Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC.
As per the aforesaid terms, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 24th day of February, 2026.