ITAT Jaipur Condoned 53-Day Delay Due to Non-Receipt of Appellate Order

Ram Chandra Choudhary Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)

Bona Fide Unawareness of Appellate Order Justifies Condonation: ₹90 Lakh Property Addition Restored for Fresh Hearing

The Legal Principle

The Jaipur Tribunal held that bona fide unawareness of an appellate order constituted sufficient cause for condoning delay, where earlier hearing notices had been communicated to the counsel’s email address but the final order was not received through that channel.

It condoned the 53-day delay and separately restored the appeal concerning a ₹90,04,708 addition under section 69 to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The relief was procedural. Neither the property-investment addition nor the reopening proceedings were finally invalidated on merits.

Background of the Property Addition

The assessee, a senior citizen and agriculturist belonging to a rural area, had declared income of ₹3,36,670 for Assessment Year 2016–17.

Information available on the Department’s Insight Portal indicated that he had purchased immovable property worth ₹84,55,108 during the year. The Assessing Officer considered the investment unexplained and initiated reassessment proceedings.

The eventual addition was ₹90,04,708, including registration charges, stamp fees and other amounts forming part of the property investment.

According to the assessment record, the assessee did not comply with the notices issued during reassessment. The source of investment consequently remained unexplained, and the amount was added under section 69.

The CIT(A) sustained the assessment, leading to the Tribunal appeal.

Why the Tribunal Appeal Was Delayed

The assessee’s appeal before the Tribunal was filed on 25 March 2026, with a delay of 53 days.

In the condonation application, he explained that hearing notices during the first appellate proceedings had been sent to his counsel’s email address. He and his counsel therefore believed that further communications, including the appellate order, would arrive through the same channel.

However, the CIT(A)’s order dated 24 November 2025 was not received on that email address. The assessee stated that he was unaware of the order until his counsel checked the Income Tax portal in the second week of March 2026.

After discovering the adverse decision, the appeal was prepared and filed promptly.

The explanation was thus based on delayed knowledge of the order and action taken after discovery, rather than an intentional decision to allow limitation to expire.

Revenue Alleged Laxity; Tribunal Accepted Sufficient Cause

The Departmental Representative opposed condonation, contending that the explanation showed laxity in pursuing the appellate remedy.

The Tribunal examined the submissions and material and accepted that the delay resulted from bona fide non-awareness of the order.

It also took account of the assessee’s responses to notices during the appellate proceedings when assessing the credibility of the delay explanation.

Following Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji & Others [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Tribunal emphasised that “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction advancing substantial justice.

It noted that delay should not automatically be presumed deliberate or attributable to culpable negligence, and that ordinarily a litigant gains nothing by filing an appeal late.

The 53-day delay was accordingly condoned.

Responding to Notices Was Distinct From Arguing the Merits

After admitting the appeal, the Tribunal examined how the substantive dispute had been dealt with.

The CIT(A) had decided the matter on the existing record because the assessee had not furnished written submissions addressing the merits. His response had essentially sought restoration of the matter.

This distinction matters. The condonation discussion records responses to appellate notices, while the merits discussion records the absence of substantive explanations supporting the case.

The Tribunal also noted non-compliance before the Assessing Officer. Thus, the source of the property investment had not been effectively explained at either stage.

Counsel requested another opportunity to present the case before the CIT(A).

Fresh Hearing Granted Without Deciding the Addition

Considering that the assessee’s case had remained substantively unheard, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) in the interest of justice.

The first appellate authority was directed to adjudicate the appeal afresh after providing a due opportunity of hearing and then pass an order in accordance with law.

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

In seeking condonation, the assessee had also asserted that he was only a 50% joint owner of the property. However, the Tribunal did not determine that claim or reduce the addition on that basis.

Similarly, the grounds challenging reopening remained for adjudication in the restored proceedings.

Author’s Comments

Delayed awareness and failure to substantiate an appeal are separate questions. The Tribunal accepted the explanation for late filing while recognising that the underlying investment still required examination.

The remand gives the assessee an opportunity to establish ownership share, actual investment and its source through relevant records. It does not establish that the entire addition was excessive or that only half could lawfully be assessed.

The decision also highlights the practical importance of monitoring appellate communications. Reliance on an established email channel explained the delay here, but the substantive defence must still be presented once the opportunity is restored.

A fresh hearing provides the forum for evidence; it does not replace that evidence.

Cases Discussed

• Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Mst. Katiji & Ors. (Supreme Court)– (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC); (1987) 2 SCC 107.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 24.11.2025 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. The appeal is noted to be delayed for filing by 53 days. An application by the assessee seeking condonation of the delay has been filed before us, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder:-

1. That appellant is a senior citizen & agriculturist belongs to a rural area.

2. That this Present appeal filed before Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench is against the order of CIT (Appeal), NFAC dated 24.11.2025, u/s. 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2016-17.

3. That the appeal is filed on 25.03.2026 (i.e. with a delay of 53 days). The Appeal Number is ITA 714/JPR/2026.

4. That at the time of appeal before CIT(Appeal) total 4 hearing notices were issued by CIT(Appeals) and all 4 notices were sent on email ID of appellant’s counsel (i.e. [email protected]).

5. That appellant complied with all 4 notices (i.e. well within the stipulated time) and this same fact can also be verified from the Income Tax Portal of appellant. The chart showing the notice issued and compliance made by appellant during CIT(Appeal) is as follows:-

6. But, the CIT (Appeal), NFAC passed the order on 24.11.2025. But, this appeal order dated 24.11.2025 could not received on email ID of counsel (i.e. [email protected]) on which all notices were communicated during the CIT (Appeal) proceeding. It is not known to the appellant that on which email ID, the appeal order was served.

7. That appellant and his counsel were in bona-fide belief that if any further hearing notice and order will be passed by CIT (Appeal) then that must be communicated to email ID of appellant’s counsel.

8. That after, a long in the 2nd Week of Month of March, 2026 my counsel checked the portal for status of appeal. Then counsel of appellant got to know that CIT dismissed the appeal vide order dated 25.03.2026 and appellant was also not aware about the order passed by Ld. CIT (Appeal) till 2nd Week of March, 2026.

9. Then, thereafter immediately we have prepared and filed the appeal before Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench on 25.03.2026 against the order of CIT (Appeal), with a delay of 53 days.

10. That the delay of 53 days was due to due to unaware about the adverse order of CIT (Appeal) dated 24.11.2025.

11. That appellant was unaware about the adverse order passed by CIT (Appeals) and appellant being a bonafide law binding citizen & wanted to legal remedy against the said order & the delay in filing of appeal was beyond my control, bonafide, and unintentionally.

12. The other reasonable cause for condontion of delay are as follows:-

(i) The delay is unintentional.

(ii) The delay in beyond the control of assessee.

(iii) Substantive justice is in favour of appellant, as the whole addition was treated as unexplained investment of Rs. 90,04,708/- made u/s. 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is illegal and unlawful as appellant was the joint owner of the property i.e. 50%. Further, the addition was baseless and without proper inquiry. If the delay is not condoned, then it will be injustice with appellant as appellant is having reasonable cause for delay.

(iv) Demand is raised without following principles of natural justice.

(v) Appellant has neither obtained any benefit by delay filing of appeal, nor intend to take any benefit by the delay filing of appeal.

(vi) Power of condone of delay given for substantive justice to the appellant authority.

(vii) If the delay is not condoned, the appellant will suffer the heavy tax liability, without any force of law, which is disproportionate burden of heavy tax liability in violation of article 265 of constitution on notional income on the basis of deemed fiction.

(viii) Assessee is bonofide in requesting the delay.

13. That, the delay is bonafide, unintentionally and beyond my control.

In view of above submission you are requested that kindly consider this as sufficient cause to condone the delay of 53 days in filing of Appeal before Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur. So, that proper inquiry can be conducted and substantial justice may be delivered to the appellant.

3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated before us that the assessee is a senior citizen and agriculturist belonging to a rural area. During the proceedings before the learned Ld. CIT(A), four notices were issued, all of which were communicated on the e-mail ID of the assessee’s counsel, [email protected], and were duly complied with within the prescribed time. It has been stated that the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 was not received on the aforesaid e-mail ID and the assessee was not aware of the passing of the said order. The assessee and his counsel remained under a bona fide belief that any further communication, including the appellate order, would be received through the same channel. Subsequently, in the second week of March, 2026, the counsel, while checking the status of the appeal on the Income Tax portal, came to know about the impugned order. Thereafter, the assessee acted promptly and filed the present appeal on 25.03.2026.

4. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the condonation of delay contending that the reason brought out by the assessee reflected laxity on his part in pursuing the remedy of filing appeal and therefore the delay ought not to be condoned.

5. We have heard both the parties.

6. The law governing condonation of delay is now well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) laid down that the expression “sufficient cause” occurring in the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The Court held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Court further observed that there is no presumption that delay is deliberate or occasioned on account of culpable negligence or mala fides and that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal belatedly.

7. We have considered the submissions and the material available on record. Considering that the assessee had duly complied with all the notices issued during the appellate proceedings and that the delay occurred on account of bona fide non-awareness of the impugned order, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay. We accordingly condone the delay of 53 days in the filing of the present appeal before us. Order was pronounced in the Open Court.

8. Taking up now the appeal for hearing.

9. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:-

1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC is wrong, unjust and has erred in law and facts in invoking the provisions of section 147 to 151 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Kindly quash the notice u/s 148 dt. 30.03.2023 as well as consequential proceedings.

2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC is wrong, unjust and has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 90,04,708/- which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the same.

3. That under the facts and circumstances the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer are against the principle of Natural Justice. Hence, the order is liable to be quashed.

4. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.

10. At the outset itself, it was stated that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex parte assessment order on the basis of material already on record. That he had given three opportunities of hearing to the assessee and since the assessee failed to file any written submissions in response to the same and merely stated that the matter be set aside, accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee had no arguments to make on the merits of the case and based on the material on record, he disposed of the appeal against the assessee.

11. The pleadings of the ld. Counsel for the assessee before us, was therefore that the assessee be granted an opportunity of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A).

12. The facts of the case are that, for the impugned year, the assessee’s case was reopened for assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, since there was information in the INSIGHT portal under the CRIU/VRU Category that the assessee had purchased an immovable property worth Rs.84,55,108/- during the year, which transaction was not disclosed in the return filed for the impugned year, in which income of Rs.3,36,670/- had been declared by the assessee. The Assessing Officer formed reason to believe that investment in property was made by the AO from unexplained sources and income to the said extent has escaped assessment. Accordingly, he assumed jurisdiction to reopen the case of the assessee by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently, order was passed u/s 147 of the Act making addition of Rs.90,04,708/- on account of investment in immovable property inclusive of registration charges, stamp fees etc., the source of which remained unexplained.

13. We have noted that before the AO also the assessee remained non-compliant to the various notices issued to it and even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has made no submissions on the merits of the case.

14. In the light of the above, since the assessee has remained unheard all along, in the interest of justice, we consider it fit to restore the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing and thereafter to pass an order in accordance with law.

15. In effect, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09.10.2026