RAJESH JAISWAL,RAMAYAN V. WARD 1(4), INDORE, INDORE

ITA 328/IND/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rajesh Jaiswal, the appellant, who contested an ex-parte order from the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which itself arose from an assessment order by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. The appellant argued that the orders were passed without proper notice or opportunity to present his case, particularly highlighting his difficulties due to age and lack of technological proficiency. The ITAT acknowledged the procedural lapses and remanded the case to the AO for a thorough re-examination, directing that the appellant be given a fair opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822254 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FORREVENUELEFTTHEMATTERTOTHEWISDOMOFBENCH; FORREVENUEAGREESWITHTHEPRAYEROFLD.ARBUTMAKESA; SHRIASHISHPORWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRISOUMYABUMB
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 5 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.328/Ind/2025 Assessment Year:2013-14 Rajesh Jaiswal, Ramayan, Scheme No.54, Indore बनाम/ Vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: ABNPJ7642K Assessee by Shri Soumya Bumb, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 17.05.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 22.03.2022 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2013-14, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36). Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Jaiswal ITA No. 328/Ind/2025 - AY 2013-14 Page 2 of 5 2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is belatedly filed after expiry of prescribed period and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation-application supported by an affidavit. Referring to same and impugned order, Ld. AR explained that (i) the assessee is a senior citizen running in 8th decade of life and is not technology friendly and due to such limitation, the assessee could not check the e-mail where the impugned order was served by CIT(A); (ii) that the CIT(A) has given only two hearings on 09/05/2024 & 16/05/2024 within a short span of one week and passed impugned order immediately on 17/05/2024; (iii) that neither the notices of hearing nor the order of first- appeal have been served physically upon the assessee, and (iv) that the assessee logged income-tax portal subsequently and then only came to know about the impugned order having been passed ex-parte. Thereafter, the assessee filed present appeal without further delay. Ld. AR very humbly submitted that there is no lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He further submitted that the sole reason of delay is as explained in the condonation-application. He submitted that there is “sufficient cause” for delay and hence the delay should be condoned. Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without raising any objection. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Jaiswal ITA No. 328/Ind/2025 - AY 2013-14 Page 3 of 5 appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. On merit, Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order and dismissed assessee’s appeal concluding thus: “In view of the appellant’s total non-compliance during appeal proceedings, I find it extremely difficult to adjudicate on the appeal for want of adequate submission and clarification, counter-clarification. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” He submitted that the impugned order passed by CIT(A) is therefore not in accordance with provisions of 250(6) of the Act which provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. He, however, added further that the assessment-order passed by AO is also ex- parte u/s 144, therefore it would be better to remand this matter back to the file of AO for a proper adjudication afresh. Ld. AR acknowledged that the Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Jaiswal ITA No. 328/Ind/2025 - AY 2013-14 Page 4 of 5 assessee has compiled and collected necessary details/documents and is ready and willing to make an effective participation before AO. 4. Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments. 5. In view of above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Jaiswal ITA No. 328/Ind/2025 - AY 2013-14 Page 5 of 5 6. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 by putting up on notice board on 23/12/2025 Sd/- sd/- (SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 23/12/2025 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore Printed from counselvise.com "