PANNALAL RAMPHER YADAV,SILVASA V. ITO, SILVASSA, SILVASSA

ITA 647/SRT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Pannalal Rampher Yadav, the appellant, contesting an order from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed an addition of Rs. 2,811,341 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The primary contention was the procedural handling of the appeal, where the Commissioner dismissed the appeal for non-response to notices without adjudicating on the merits. The Tribunal noted the procedural impropriety and remanded the case for a detailed examination of the substantive issues.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786130 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Another [(1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC)], Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT [(1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP)], CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del.)]
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J.K. CHANDNANI
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIN SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “SMC” SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 647/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Pannalal Rampher Yadav, Dayat Falia, Silvassa-396230. Vs. ITO Vee Bee Mall, Near Civil Court, Silvassa-396230. PAN NO. ACAPY 5557 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Parin Shah, CA Revenue by : Mr. J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/10/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2019-2020, raising following grounds : 1. The order passed by the lower authorities is invalid, bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.2811341 u/s 69A of the Act ignoring submission of the appellant. Printed from counselvise.com 3. Ld. NFAC ought to have pass an order as per the provision u/s 250(6) of the Act rather than dismissed the same on limine. 2. At the very inception of the hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee adverted to a delay of present appeal, as noted by the Registry. The learned Counsel, inviting our attention to the deposition of the assessee placed on record, submitted that owing to his advanced age and attendant medical ailments, the asse matters regularly, and, as a result, remained unaware of the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income only upon his counsel’s subsequent verification of the e portal that the existence of the said order came to his notice. 2.1 Upon consideration of these submissions and the material before us, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by a sufficient and bona fide cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The delay being neither deliberate nor contumacious, but occasioned by circumstances beyond the assessee’s control, we deem it fit, in the interest of substantial justice, to condone the delay of thirty accordingly admitted for adjudication. 3. On perusal of the record, it transpires that the assessee did not respond to the notices of hearing issued by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who consequently dismissed the appeal in Ld. NFAC ought to have pass an order as per the provision u/s 250(6) of the Act rather than dismissed the same on limine. At the very inception of the hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee adverted to a delay of thirty-six days in the filing of the present appeal, as noted by the Registry. The learned Counsel, inviting our attention to the deposition of the assessee placed on record, submitted that owing to his advanced age and attendant medical ailments, the assessee was unable to attend to his office matters regularly, and, as a result, remained unaware of the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It was only upon his counsel’s subsequent verification of the e he existence of the said order came to his notice. Upon consideration of these submissions and the material before us, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by a sufficient and bona fide cause from filing the appeal within the iod of limitation. The delay being neither deliberate nor contumacious, but occasioned by circumstances beyond the assessee’s control, we deem it fit, in the interest of substantial justice, to condone the delay of thirty-six days. The appeal is y admitted for adjudication. On perusal of the record, it transpires that the assessee did not respond to the notices of hearing issued by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who consequently dismissed the appeal in Pannalal Rampher Yadav 2 ITA No. 647/SRT/2025 Ld. NFAC ought to have pass an order as per the provision u/s 250(6) of the Act rather than dismissed the same on At the very inception of the hearing, the learned Counsel for six days in the filing of the present appeal, as noted by the Registry. The learned Counsel, inviting our attention to the deposition of the assessee placed on record, submitted that owing to his advanced age and attendant ssee was unable to attend to his office matters regularly, and, as a result, remained unaware of the order tax (Appeals). It was only upon his counsel’s subsequent verification of the e-proceedings he existence of the said order came to his notice. Upon consideration of these submissions and the material before us, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by a sufficient and bona fide cause from filing the appeal within the iod of limitation. The delay being neither deliberate nor contumacious, but occasioned by circumstances beyond the assessee’s control, we deem it fit, in the interest of substantial six days. The appeal is On perusal of the record, it transpires that the assessee did not respond to the notices of hearing issued by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who consequently dismissed the appeal in Printed from counselvise.com default. The relevant extract from th records that several notices were duly issued and served through the registered e-mail address of the assessee, but no response was forthcoming. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, concluded that the non assessee was not interested in pursuing his appeal. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in [(1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC)], the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT and the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in (P) Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del.)], and dismissed the accordingly. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 4. Several notices were issued giving opportunities of being heard to the appellant, which were duly served upon the appellant through registered email. No response is rece notices issued are as under: Sr. No. Date of Notice 1 22.04.2024 2 12.12.2024 3. 27.12.2024 default. The relevant extract from the impugned appellate order records that several notices were duly issued and served through mail address of the assessee, but no response was forthcoming. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, concluded that the non-appearance was deliberate and that the assessee was not interested in pursuing his appeal. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Another [(1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC)], the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT [(1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP)], and the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in CIT v. Multiplan India [(1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del.)], and dismissed the The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as 4. Several notices were issued giving opportunities of being heard to the appellant, which were duly served upon the appellant through registered email. No response is received till date. The particulars of notices issued are as under: Date of Notice Date of hearing Remarks 22.04.2024 03.05.2024 Delivered on the registered e-mail address given by the appellant, but no response received. 12.12.2024 17.12.2024 Delivered on the registered e-mail address given by the appellant, but no response received. 27.12.2024 03.01.2025 Delivered on the registered e-mail address given by the appellant, but no response received. Pannalal Rampher Yadav 3 ITA No. 647/SRT/2025 e impugned appellate order records that several notices were duly issued and served through mail address of the assessee, but no response was forthcoming. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, deliberate and that the assessee was not interested in pursuing his appeal. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) placed reliance upon the decisions of the CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Another [(1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC)], the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court [(1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP)], CIT v. Multiplan India [(1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del.)], and dismissed the appeal The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as 4. Several notices were issued giving opportunities of being heard to the appellant, which were duly served upon the appellant through ived till date. The particulars of mail address given by the appellant, but no mail address given by the appellant, but no mail address given by the appellant, but no Printed from counselvise.com 4 14.01.2025 5 28.01.2025 4.1 In view of the above, it appears that the non is deliberate as all the notices have been duly served upon the appellant on the registered email account. No response has been received from the appellant till date. It is reasonable to infer from the continued non- its appeal. 4.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of and Another, 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively prosecuting it. Hon'ble M.P. High vs. CWT, (1997) (223 ITR 480) (M.P.) dismissed the reference in default and for not taking necessary steps. Similar view has been taken by I.T.A.T. Delhi Bench in the case ofCIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) L )(38 ITD 320). Considering the above, it appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. However, going on merits and facts available on record, I find no infirmity in the action of the Assessing Officer. Hence, there is n same.” 3.1 Having carefully considered the matter, we are constrained to observe that, under the mandate of Section 250 of the Income Act, 1961, the first appellate authority is required to dispose of the appeal by passing a reasoned and speaking order on the merits of the case, even in the event of non dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution, without adjudicating upon the merits, does not accord with the letter and spirit of th statute. 3.2 In the present case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has confined himself to the default of appearance without undertaking 14.01.2025 21.01.2025 Delivered on the registered e-mail address given by the appellant, but no response received. 28.01.2025 03.02.2025 Delivered on the registered e-mail address given by the appellant, but no response received. In view of the above, it appears that the non-appearance is deliberate as all the notices have been duly served upon the appellant on the registered email account. No response has been received from the appellant till date. It is reasonable to infer from the -compliance that the appellant is not serious to pursue Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another, 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively prosecuting it. Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late TukojiraoHolkar vs. CWT, (1997) (223 ITR 480) (M.P.) dismissed the reference in default and for not taking necessary steps. Similar view has been taken by I.T.A.T. Delhi Bench in the case ofCIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) L )(38 ITD 320). Considering the above, it appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. However, going on merits and facts available on record, I find no infirmity in the action of the Assessing Officer. Hence, there is no occasion for interfering with the Having carefully considered the matter, we are constrained to observe that, under the mandate of Section 250 of the Income Act, 1961, the first appellate authority is required to dispose of the assing a reasoned and speaking order on the merits of the case, even in the event of non-appearance by the appellant. The dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution, without adjudicating upon the merits, does not accord with the letter and spirit of th In the present case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has confined himself to the default of appearance without undertaking Pannalal Rampher Yadav 4 ITA No. 647/SRT/2025 mail address given by the appellant, but no mail address given by the appellant, but no appearance to notices is deliberate as all the notices have been duly served upon the appellant on the registered email account. No response has been received from the appellant till date. It is reasonable to infer from the t is not serious to pursue CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another, 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively prosecuting it. Court in the case of Estate of Late TukojiraoHolkar vs. CWT, (1997) (223 ITR 480) (M.P.) dismissed the reference in default and for not taking necessary steps. Similar view has been taken by I.T.A.T. Delhi Bench in the case ofCIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (1991 )(38 ITD 320). Considering the above, it appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. However, going on merits and facts available on record, I find no infirmity in the action of the o occasion for interfering with the Having carefully considered the matter, we are constrained to observe that, under the mandate of Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the first appellate authority is required to dispose of the assing a reasoned and speaking order on the merits of appearance by the appellant. The dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution, without adjudicating upon the merits, does not accord with the letter and spirit of the In the present case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has confined himself to the default of appearance without undertaking Printed from counselvise.com any discussion of the issues arising from the assessment order. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the be better served if the matter is remitted to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh adjudication on merits, after affording the assessee due opportunity of being heard. 3.3 Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Commi (Appeals) is set aside. The matter is restored to his file with the direction to consider the assessee’s submissions and to dispose of the appeal by a reasoned order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to ensure that his written s supporting documents are filed within fifteen days of receipt of the first notice of hearing issued by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 3.4 Accordingly, the ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed and remaining grounds rare not adj 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced by way display o on 30/10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30/10/2025 any discussion of the issues arising from the assessment order. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the ends of justice would be better served if the matter is remitted to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh adjudication on merits, after affording the assessee due opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Commi (Appeals) is set aside. The matter is restored to his file with the direction to consider the assessee’s submissions and to dispose of the appeal by a reasoned order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to ensure that his written s supporting documents are filed within fifteen days of receipt of the first notice of hearing issued by the learned Commissioner ordingly, the ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed and remaining grounds rare not adjudicated. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced by way display of result on notice board /10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (OM PRAKASH KANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pannalal Rampher Yadav 5 ITA No. 647/SRT/2025 any discussion of the issues arising from the assessment order. We ends of justice would be better served if the matter is remitted to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh adjudication on merits, after affording the assessee due opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside. The matter is restored to his file with the direction to consider the assessee’s submissions and to dispose of the appeal by a reasoned order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to ensure that his written submissions and supporting documents are filed within fifteen days of receipt of the first notice of hearing issued by the learned Commissioner ordingly, the ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is udicated. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for f result on notice board /10/2025 under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Surat Pannalal Rampher Yadav 6 ITA No. 647/SRT/2025 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Surat Printed from counselvise.com "