SUNIL KUMAR PEJJAI,CHILAKALURIPETA V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

ITA 350/VIZ/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Sunil Kumar Pejjai against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was dismissed ex parte due to non-compliance by the assessee in responding to notices. The assessee faced a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, attributed to outdated contact information of his consultant. The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the Supreme Court's directive for a liberal approach in such matters, condoned the delay and restored the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 777098 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2025
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BADICALA YADAGIRI
• Assessee Lawyers: I. KAMA SASTRY
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH AT HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) श्री विजय पाल राि, उपाध् यक्ष एिं श्री मिुसूदन सािडिया, लेखा सदस् य क े समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No.350/VIZ/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Shri Sunil Kumar Pejjai, Guntur. PAN:AIWPP4666M Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri I. Kama Sastry, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 11/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 19/09/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M. : This appeal is filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Pejjai (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 09.01.2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.350/VIZ/2025 2 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 59 days in filing of the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons. The explanation of the assessee is that on the Income Tax portal, the mobile number and e-mail ID of his earlier consultant were registered. That consultant had left the place and his contact number also got changed. Consequently, the assessee could not come to know about the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and the passing of the appellate order. It has been explained that the assessee came to know about the order of the Ld. CIT(A) only when summons was received from the Income Tax Department on 02.05.2025. Immediately thereafter, the assessee took steps to file the present appeal, which was filed on 29.05.2025. It has been stated that there was no deliberate or intentional delay. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal and admission of the same for adjudication. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.350/VIZ/2025 3 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the condonation. He submitted that the assessee has been consistently non-compliant i.e. first, by not filing return of income despite huge cash deposits; second, by not responding to notices before the Ld. AO; third, by not prosecuting the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A); and now, by filing this appeal belatedly. He contended that the conduct of the assessee does not merit indulgence and the delay should not be condoned. 4. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that there is a delay of 59 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has explained that he could not receive notices or order of the Ld. CIT(A) due to non- updated mobile number and e-mail ID of his earlier consultant on the portal. As soon as he came to know of the order on 02.05.2025, immediate steps were taken and the appeal was filed on 29.05.2025. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur in Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.350/VIZ/2025 4 Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31st January, 2025, has held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be taken while dealing with the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, taking a judicial and liberal approach, we condone the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.350/VIZ/2025 5 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the reassessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 147 read with section 144 and section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for A.Y. 2018–19 on 19.02.2024. During the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not make any compliance to the notices issued. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte. 7. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. The solitary submission of the Ld. AR Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.350/VIZ/2025 6 was that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. He submitted that the assessee could not respond to the notices of the Ld. CIT(A) due to bona fide reasons. As already explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal, the assessee was not aware of the notices issued and hence could not prosecute the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). He contended that no benefit accrues to the assessee by non-prosecution and dismissal ex parte. Therefore, invoking the principles of natural justice, he prayed that the issue may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits after giving the assessee an effective opportunity. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR opposed the prayer for remand. He submitted that the assessee did not cooperate either before the Ld. AO or before the Ld. CIT(A), and now seeks a fresh opportunity without justification. He further submitted that there was even a delay in filing of the present appeal before the Tribunal, which also Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.350/VIZ/2025 7 reflects the conduct of the assessee. Hence, according to the Ld. DR, no further indulgence should be granted. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte on account of non-compliance by the assessee. While the conduct of the assessee in not responding to notices cannot be condoned lightly, at the same time, it is a settled position that a litigant should not be denied a hearing on merits merely on account of non-appearance, provided he is willing to prosecute the matter further. The principles of natural justice demand that the assessee be given one final opportunity to substantiate his claim. We therefore deem it fit to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions that, the Ld. CIT(A) shall decide the appeal afresh on merits, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file all necessary evidence, explanations, and submissions in support of his claim without seeking any unnecessary adjournments and to cooperate fully with the appellate proceedings. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.350/VIZ/2025 8 Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal to his file for fresh adjudication. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19th Sept., 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad. Dated: 19.09.2025. * Reddy gp Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. Shri Sunil Kumar Pejjai, 3-458, Pandaripuram, 9th Lane, Chilakaluripeta-522 616, Guntur District, A.P. 2. The ITO, Ward 2(1), Guntur. 3. Pr.CIT, Vijayawada. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, Printed from counselvise.com "