Facts of the Case

The assessee, M/s R.P. Singh & Company, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 20.07.2023 for Assessment Year 2016-17. The appeal before the Tribunal was filed on 12.03.2025 with a delay of 529 days. No formal application for condonation of delay was filed. The assessee explained that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond its control and was neither deliberate nor intentional. On merits, the assessee contended that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex parte for want of prosecution without granting reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Issues Involved

Whether the delay of 529 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal deserved condonation, whether dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) for want of prosecution without effective opportunity violated principles of natural justice, and whether the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and caused due to circumstances beyond its control. It was argued that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations such as limitation. On merits, it was contended that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without granting reasonable opportunity of hearing and therefore the matter deserved restoration. The assessee undertook to cooperate fully in the appellate proceedings if another opportunity was granted.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Revenue did not raise serious objections to the condonation of delay. On merits, the Revenue contended that the CIT(A) had granted sufficient opportunities to the assessee and that the assessee failed to comply with the notices. The Revenue supported the order passed by the CIT(A).

Court Order / Findings

The ITAT Ranchi held that when substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations such as limitation, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 529 days in filing the appeal. On merits, the Tribunal observed that although the CIT(A) had granted multiple opportunities, the assessee expressed willingness to cooperate and substantiate its case. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of hearing. The restoration was made subject to payment of cost of ₹10,000 to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association within 60 days. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the proceedings, furnish all relevant documents, and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

Important Clarification

The Tribunal clarified that dismissal of an appeal on technical grounds without adjudication on merits should be avoided where possible. Grant of one final opportunity with imposition of reasonable cost strikes a balance between ensuring natural justice and discouraging non-compliance.

Final Outcome

The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication subject to payment of cost of ₹10,000 and compliance with directions issued by the Tribunal.

Link to Download Order- https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1769079688_MSRPSINGHCORANCHIVS.DCITACITCIRCLE1RANCHIRANCHI.pdf

 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.