SMT. SHANTI KURREY, DURG,DURG V. ITO-1(5), BHILAI, BHILAI

ITA 532/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Shanti Kurrey, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for the assessment year 2011-12. The initial appeal was dismissed by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC due to non-compliance and non-response from the appellant to multiple notices. The appellant, aged 79 and residing in a rural area with limited access to digital systems, faced challenges in responding to these notices. The Tribunal noted the lack of professional assistance and the appellant's age-related difficulties as reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits and directed a de novo hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773569 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur, Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), Raheem Shah & ANR Vs. Govind Singh & Ors
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice; TDS

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.532/RPR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Shanti Kurrey Kumhari, Dhamdha, Dist. Durg, Chhattishgarh-491 001 PAN: BQZPK2494L .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer-1(5), Bhilai (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 Smt. Shanti Kurrey Vs. ITO-1(5), Bhilai ITA No.532/RPR/2025 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 06.03.2024 for the assessment year 2011-12 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. At the time of hearing none appeared for the assessee. The matter is heard after recording the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and on careful perusal of the material available on record. 3. At the very outset, it is noted that the present appeal is time barred by 461 days. Explaining the reasons leading to the said delay, the assessee has filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit dated 06.08.2025. For the sake of completeness, the contents of the said affidavit are extracted as follows: Printed from counselvise.com 3 Smt. Shanti Kurrey Vs. ITO-1(5), Bhilai ITA No.532/RPR/2025 As per the contents of the affidavit, it has been stated by the assessee that she is aged about 79 years and is staying in rural area having limited access to digital system and professional assistance. In this regard, it has to be noted that in spite of notice through DR in the last hearing, the assessee had not filed any power of attorney or Vokalatnama which suggest that she is not getting assistance of any legal professional and therefore, benefit of doubt is attributed to the assessee. 4. The Ld. Sr. DR conceded to these facts as stated by the assessee in the affidavit and did not raise any objection regarding the said condonation of delay. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and on perusal of the case records, I hold that there is nothing on record to suggest any deliberate or malafide conduct of the assessee for causing such delay. In all probabilities, it is due to the lack of professional assistance and also for staying in a remote area coupled with the old age deficiencies and ailments, the said inordinate delay was caused. At the same time in these issues a liberal and judicious approach must be adopted also. Taking guidance from the judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025, (ii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur Printed from counselvise.com 4 Smt. Shanti Kurrey Vs. ITO-1(5), Bhilai ITA No.532/RPR/2025 (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, and (iii) 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 condone the delay of 461 days involved in the captioned appeal. 6. Coming to the merits of the matter, it is noted that as per Para 4 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC vide an ex-parte order had dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance by the assessee. For the sake of clarity, the Para 4 of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC’s order are culled out as follows: “4. Details of appellate proceedings: Notices u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the appellant to submit/upload documents and arguments in support of its grounds of appeals. The details of notices served as under: S. No. Notice issue date (through ITBA) Date of compliance Response of appellant 1. 18.01.2021 26.11.2021 No written submission filed in support of grounds of appeal. No request of adjournment made. 2. 22.03.2023 29.03.2023 3. 11.04.2023 18.04.2023 4. 05.02.2024 12.02.2024 5. 26.02.2024 04.03.2024 It has been observed that the appellant has not responded to any of the notices mentioned above and has not participated in the appellate proceedings. Considering the non-responsive nature of the appellant another notice u/s. 250 was issued to the appellant on 26.02.2024 requesting to submit or Printed from counselvise.com 5 Smt. Shanti Kurrey Vs. ITO-1(5), Bhilai ITA No.532/RPR/2025 upload the documents in support of its grounds of appeal. However, no reply or submission has been received from the appellant on ITBA till date. 4. Decision: I have carefully gone through the facts of the case and grounds of appeal submitted by the appellant. The appellant opted not to respond the above notices for the reason best known to her. No documents were produced before me on ITBA in support of grounds of appeal or to rebut the assessment order despite given sufficient opportunities. In view of the above facts, it is clear that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the present appeal on merits and therefore, in absence of any evidence to rebut the assessment order, the assessment order is CONFIRMED and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Hence, all grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed. 5. In result, the assessment order is CONFIRMED.” 7. 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. 8. I have carefully considered the contents in the documents/material available on record. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution by the assessee without dealing with the merits of the case. Accordingly, as per the aforesaid examination of the entire spectrum of the matter in the interest of natural justice, I deem it fit and proper to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to represent her case on merits before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. In my considered view, Printed from counselvise.com 6 Smt. Shanti Kurrey Vs. ITO-1(5), Bhilai ITA No.532/RPR/2025 once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, it becomes obligatory on its part to dispose off the same on merit and it is not open for him to summarily dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution without going into the merits of the case. In fact, a perusal of Sec.251(1)(a) and (b), as well as the “Explanation” to Sec.251(2) of the Act reveals that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC remains under a statutory obligation to apply his mind to all the issues which arises from the impugned order before him. As per the mandate of law the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). In the aforementioned case the Hon’ble High Court had observed as under: \"8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Sec. 250 of the Act. Further, Sec. 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Sec. 251(1)(a) and (h) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub- s. (2) of s. 251 of the Act also makes it clear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an assessee files an appeal under s. 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to Printed from counselvise.com 7 Smt. Shanti Kurrey Vs. ITO-1(5), Bhilai ITA No.532/RPR/2025 withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact w.e.f. 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the AO and restore it to the AO for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the AO i.e. he can do all that A.O could do. Therefore, just as it is not open to the AO to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the s. 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Sec. 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.” 9. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raheem Shah & ANR Vs. Govind Singh & Ors (Civil Appeal No.4628 of 2023), has held that “we are heedful to state that, while dealing with tax litigation, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC being a quasi-judicial authority was expected to adopt justice oriented approach rather resorting to iron-cast technical one.” 10. That upon examination of the aforesaid facts and binding judicial pronouncements, 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 and submit necessary submissions/evidence to represent the matter on merits. The Printed from counselvise.com 8 Smt. Shanti Kurrey Vs. ITO-1(5), Bhilai ITA No.532/RPR/2025 Ld.CIT(Appeal)/NFAC shall accordingly pass order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. 11. As per the aforesaid terms, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 25th day of September, 2025. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 25th September, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur Printed from counselvise.com "