Pawan Kumar vs Income Tax Officer

PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM:

Pawan Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Applicant’) by moving application under section 254 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) in the aforesaid case for AY 2018-19 in ITA No.3891/DEL/2026 (order dated 11.02.2025) prayed for restoring the appeal for fresh hearing on merits.

At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the case of the assessee was heard ex-parte and dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 11.02.2025 for the reason that non appeared on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing. He submitted that he has sent adjournment request vide email dated 11.02.2025 for the reason ‘ill health’. He submitted that for some reason, the same was not brought to the notice of the Bench. Further, he submitted that misc. application filed by the assessee on 06.03.2026 whereas the appeal was disposed off on 11.02.2025. The reason for filing the misc. application on 06.03.2026 is that the assessee has not received the above order and the assessee has obtained the order by filing an application on 22.01.2026. He also brought to our notice relevant affidavit filed by the assessee that assessee has never received the ITAT order and he further submitted that disposal of the appeal without granting reasonable opportunity of hearing has resulted in a mistake apparent from record. Assessee has also strong prima facie case on merits regarding the taxability of compensation received under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. He prayed that the misc. application filed by the assessee may be allowed and on merits. he submitted that ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. He submitted that ld. CIT (A) decided the issue without appreciating the actual facts on record and dismissed the same without properly appreciating the facts and relevant decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Manjit Singh HUF 271 taxman 72 and other relevant decisions of Hon’ble Courts. He prayed that the issue may be remitted back to ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the same.

On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted that misc. application filed by the assessee is time barred and he objected to the recall of the same and with regard to merits of the case, he heavily relied on the findings of the lower authorities.

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed from the record that the Registry has filed a report on dispatch of the ITAT order on 18.03.2025. Since 90 orders were dispatched together and registry was not in a position to track various articles dispatched on 18.03.2025 after expiry of 90 days. Since Registry was unable to certify that relevant order was delivered to the assessee. We observed that various Hon’ble High Courts interpreted the words order passed to mean that it is delivered to the assessee or brought to the notice of the assessee. That being the case, in the present case, there is no evidence with the Registry for delivering of the abovesaid order to the assessee and assessee has filed a detailed affidavit submitting that assessee has never received the ITAT order considering the position of farmer who is illiterate and there is no proper record to prove that the same was delivered to the assessee or to the counsel, we are inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the assessee and to meet the ends of justice, accordingly we are inclined to recall the order for adjudication. In the result, the misc. application filed by the assessee is allowed.

With the consent of both the parties, we proceeded to hear the case on merits. We observed that ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without properly appreciating the facts on record. We further observed that ld. AR submitted that ld. CIT (A) has not appreciated the relevant decisions of various courts as well as the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Manjit Singh HUF 271 taxman 72. We further observed that the ld. CIT (A) passed an ex-parte order and not on merits. In this view of the matter and in the interest of justice, in our considered view, assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, we direct ld. CIT (A) to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit as per law. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the ld.CIT (A) on the date of hearing and cooperate with the tax authorities. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

To sum up : the misc. application filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.