2026 (2) TMI 257 - AT - Income Tax

Dismissal for nonprosecution and ex parte reassessment; remand to AO for fresh adjudication and cost imposed.

Dismissal for non-prosecution of an appeal led to an ex parte reassessment proceeding under reassessment provisions; the tribunal noted the assessee's ... Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) for non-prosecution - assessee did not respond the notices except on one occasion - ex parte order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to note that the assessee is not well versed with the law and because of which could not represent his case properly before both the Revenue authorities. But the assessee also did not file the requisite details before the authorities, therefore, the assessee is directed to pay cost of Rs. 2,000/- in appeal to the “Prime Minister’s Relief Fund” within the period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication and verification of the issues and decide the matter accordingly. Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal should condone the delay of 57 days in filing the appeals to the Tribunal. (ii) Whether the appeals should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with opportunity to the assessee and related directions (including imposition of costs).Issue (i): Condonation of delay of 57 days in filing the appeals to the Tribunal.Analysis: The Tribunal considered the affidavit and application for condonation and the factual explanation for delay. The Tribunal noted the delay appeared genuine and that the assessee had not been well versed with law; the Tribunal weighed this explanation against the requirements for timely filing and the interest of justice.Conclusion: Delay of 57 days in filing the appeals is condoned.Issue (ii): Remand to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with opportunity to the assessee and imposition of costs.Analysis: The Tribunal examined the conduct of proceedings before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), including non-response by the assessee to notices and a dismissal for non-prosecution, and the assessee's limited legal understanding. The Tribunal determined that, notwithstanding previous non-responses, fairness and natural justice require that the assessee be given an opportunity to represent and file requisite details; the Tribunal therefore directed remand for proper adjudication and verification. The Tribunal also imposed a modest cost on the assessee to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund to reflect the need for cooperation and discourage unnecessary adjournments.Conclusion: The matters are remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with directions to provide opportunity of hearing in accordance with principles of natural justice; the assessee is directed to pay costs of Rs. 2,000 to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within two weeks.Final Conclusion: The appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes by condoning the Tribunal filing delay and remanding the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with specified directions and costs; identical directions apply to all eight appeals.Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee has not adequately represented before earlier authorities but demonstrates a genuine delay or inability to engage, the Tribunal may condone delay and remand the matter for fresh adjudication to secure compliance with principles of natural justice while imposing proportional costs to ensure cooperation.