RAJU JHANGHEL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals are that the assessee, proprietor of M/s Raj Trading Company, filed his original Income Tax Returns (‘ITRs’) of the relevant years within the prescribed time under section 139 of the Act. Later, both the cases were re-opened under section 148 of the Act. The reason for re-opening of these cases were that the appellant assessee had taken accommodation entries aggregating to Rs.16,54,79,650/- and Rs.31,64,15,869/- in AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. Consequential, assessments were completed by taxing the above mentioned accommodation entries, which resulted assessments at Rs.16,56,91,180/- and Rs.31,66,81,959/- for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, respectively.

Aggrieved with both assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed both appeals ex-parte without adjudicating any grounds of appeals. The relevant part of the CIT(A) order in reads as under: “4.1 I have carefully perused the assessment order and the grounds of appeal submitted by the appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the following opportunities of being heard were granted to the appellant vide notices w/s 250 of the Act issued through the ITBA portal which are summarized below: Sr. No. Date of Notice Date of Compliance Remark 1. 25.10.2024 07.11.2024 Non compliance 2. 08.11.2024 18.11.2024 Non compliance 3. 19.11.2024 26.11.2024 Non compliance 4. 27.11.2024 04.12.2024 Non compliance Raju Janghel vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur The above table clearly demonstrates that the appellant has been allowed several opportunities to explain the contentions of this appeal but to no avail as the appellant has remained not-forthcoming and has not responded on the ITBA portal.

That, the assessee has approached me for filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Raipur against the said appellate order passed on 06-12-2024, the appeal has been filed on 22-07-2025 before the Hon'ble ITAT, Raipur which is delayed by 144 days, that, this delay has been occurred due to non- informing me i.e., mistakenly, about the facts & details of the assessee's case by my office staff, in time.”

The condonation of delay in filing this appeal is on the record. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay was not due to any negligence or lack of due diligence on his part. There is no dispute that under section 254 of the Act, the Tribunal may pass such order as it thinks fit. In case of HL Malhotra & Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Circle-12, New Delhi (ITA No. 211/2020 & CM Appeals 32045-32047/2020 dated 22nd December, 2020), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that in absence of anything malafide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, the Court should normally condone the delay as the intent is always to promote substantial justice following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 2 SCC 107 and N. Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy 1998 (7) SCC 123. Raju Janghel vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

The explanation of the Ld. AR therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on his part in not presenting this appeal within the prescribed time. In case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs MST Katiji (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the expression ‘Sufficient Cause’ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub-serves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. It was further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that such liberal approach is adopted on one of the principles that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Another principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. It was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. In the instant case, applying the same principles, we find that there is no culpable negligence or malafide on the part of the assessee/AR in delayed filing of this appeal as he does not stand to benefit by resorting to such delay. Therefore, in the factual matrix of the present case, we Raju Janghel vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur find that there exists sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing this appeal as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred.

On the other hand, Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, the Ld. CIT-DR representing the Revenue opposed the condonation of delay vehemently.

We have heard both parties at length. We are of the considered view that the delay in filing this appeal deserves to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice and this appeal be decided on merit. We do not see any prejudice which will be caused to the Revenue in deciding this appeal on merit. In light of aforesaid discussions, in exercise of powers under section 254 of the Act, we hereby condone the delay in filing this appeal as we are satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not presenting this appeal within the prescribed time.

The Ld. AR drew our attention to the grounds of appeal taken before the Ld. CIT(A) as per Form No. 35, wherein, the addition had been challenged. He prayed for remanding back the case to the Ld. CIT(A) as the impugned order was not well reasoned. He contended that the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the ground with reasoning though he was required to do so as per the law. He put emphasis on various provisions of sections 250 and 251 of the Act. To which, the Ld. CIT-DR appeared in agreement. Raju Janghel vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

We have heard both parties at length and have perused the materials available on record. We take note of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the sole ground of appeal after discussing the issue in detail and his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order though he/she, as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, is obliged to dispose of the appeal in writing with well-reasoned order on each point of determination arisen for his consideration. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him/her, whether or not these issues have been raised by the assessee before him/her. On cumulative consideration of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act, the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution of appeal and is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits.

Further, we also take note of the fact that the assessee has not ensured any effective compliance before the Ld. AO.

We have heard both parties and perused the material available on the record. We take note of the fact that the both Authorities below have decided the case ex- parte and not on the merits. Considering the facts in entirety and without offering any comment on merit of the case, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the case afresh/denovo, in accordance with the law, after providing adequate opportunity Raju Janghel vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur of being heard to the appellant assessee. Ordered accordingly. The appellant assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in remitted assessment proceedings to meet the shortcoming on his part in the earlier assessment as well as appellate proceedings.

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.