Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Shankar Lal Agrawal HUF, filed an appeal against an ex-parte order from the CIT(Appeals) for AY 2015-16, which was delayed by 367 days. The delay was attributed to the death of the assessee's father, who was the Karta of the HUF, in a road accident.
Held
The tribunal condoned the 367-day delay, acknowledging the circumstances of the Karta's death and the subsequent legal procedures. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present their case on merits.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the condonation of a significant delay in filing the appeal and the validity of an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(Appeals) due to the assessee's non-compliance.
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, dated 21.11.2024 for the assessment year 2015-16 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the present appeal is time barred by 367 days. That explaining the reasons for such delay, he submitted by making statement at bar that father of the assessee had expired in a road accident and death certificate has been also submitted for the purpose on record and he was the karta of the said HUF. That due to this unfortunate incident, the appeal could not be filed in timely manner.
Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR objecting to the condonation of the said delay submitted that there is a gap of more than 1 year from the date of expiry of the deceased Karta of HUF and due date of filing appeal. Therefore, cause of delay could not be the death of the said karta of HUF, hence, delay should not be condoned.
The Ld. Counsel had made statement at bar regarding expiry of father of the assessee being karta of the HUF, the only objection raised by the Ld. Sr. DR was due to the fact that there is gap of more than 1 year
3 Shankar Lal Agrawal HUF Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Raigarh (C.G) from the incident of death occurring and regarding the time of limitation for filing the appeal. However, in my considered view, in such accident death cases there are so many legal procedures to be complied with involving hospital, police authority and in such circumstances, therefore, it is within the purview of human probability that the assessee may fail to comply with the time of limitation for filing the appeal before any Forum. Furthermore, so far as the very spectrum of the matter is concerned an ex-parte order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. In this regard, this bench has granted one final opportunity to every assessee to represent the matter on merits before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in absence of any evidence by the Department suggesting that such non- compliance was deliberate on the part of the assessee. Herein also the case is no different. Taking guidance from 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. 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,
That as already examined, there has been an ex-parte order being passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC vide paras 5 & 6.2 of its order due to non-compliance by the assessee, in such scenario and in absence of document/evidence filed by the Department against the assessee, benefit of doubt has already been provided to the tax payer assessee by this bench that there may be reasons beyond the control of the assessee, for which, such non-compliance had occurred. It would be relevant to extract paras 5 & 6.2 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC’s order as follows: “5. Notices: In the instant case, notices of hearing have been issued for a number of time as detailed below: Sr. Date of Notice Date of Remarks No. hearing 1. 22.07.2024 16.08.2024 No Response 2. 21.08.2024 05.09.2024 No Response 3. 05.09.2024 12.09.2024 No Response 4. 13.09.2024 23.09.2024 No Response 5. 14.10.2024 21.10.2024 No Response
6.2. I have carefully considered the facts of the case. In spite of adequate opportunity, the appellant did not file any documentary evidences/proof in support of grounds of appeal filed in Form No.
35. It is evident from the file that despite a period of nearly five months from the issue of first notice, the appellant has not taken efforts to make any 5 Shankar Lal Agrawal HUF Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Raigarh (C.G) submissions. In the notices, it was specifically pointed out that if no submissions/information/documents is/are received within the stipulated time period, it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in this matter. It was also brought to the notice of the appellant that department may then proceed ahead based on material available on record. No other written detailed submissions were filed in response to the notices. In this regard annexure to the notice dated 14.10.2024 is reproduced here for ready reference; "Please refer to hearing notices dated 22.07.2024, 21.08.2024, 05.09.2024, 13.09.2024 and 21.10.2024, served upon you, wherein you were required to submit the details along with relevant documents and submissions on grounds of appeal and statement of facts. However, no response is received from you till date. In this regard you are given an opportunity to submit the relevant documents. In this regard you are given one more opportunity to submit the details as called for vide above mentioned hearing notices if no submissions/information/documents is/are received within the stipulated time period, it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in this matter. The Department may proceed ahead based on material available on record. Submit details of appeal fees paid. It is, requested to furnish your submissions along with relevant documents on or before 21.10.2024." Despite the above indication, the appellant has not responded nor has submitted anything in his defence. It is bounden duty of the appellant that submissions be made in support of grounds of appeal. 6.3. The appellant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about judicial/ appeal proceedings pending with the Income Tax Authorities against him or initiated at his instance. After filing the appeal or requesting for adjournment, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and not respond to the notices at all.”
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 and consistency, 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 this being the final opportunity, the assessee shall duly comply with the hearing notices from the 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.