An appellate authority must decide an appeal on merits by addressing the points of determination and providing reasons as per S.250(6) of the Income-tax Act, rather than dismissing it ex-parte for non-prosecution, ensuring the principles of natural justice are upheld.

BEFORE THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

In the case of Smt. Manju Agarwal

PAN: AAZPA9296K

Assessment Year: 2014-15

Appeal No. : ITA-1106/Ind/2025

Petition for condonation of delay in Filing Appeal

The Hon'ble Members of the Tribunal,

Indore Bench, Indore.

The appellant most respectfully submits as under:

1. That the impugned order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, dated 10.03.2025, dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.

2. That the present appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal was filed on 16.12.2025, resulting in a delay of 199 days from the prescribed period of limitation.

3. That the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to bonafide and unavoidable circumstances explained herein below.

4. That the appellant is an individual assessee and a senior citizen, having limited technical knowledge and complete dependence on manual communication and/or reported by counsel for receipt of notices and orders under the faceless regime.

5. That the impugned appellate order dated 10.03.2025 was never received or served on any of the registered or regularly used email IDs of the appellant or her authorised representative, namely:

o soumyasgarg@gmail.com (Primary)

o kcagrawalco@gmail.com (Secondary)

Consequently, the appellant remained under the bonafide belief that the appeal before the CIT(A) was still pending and no further action was required at that stage.

6. That due to non-receipt of the appellate order, the appellant could not form an opinion that any statutory remedy before this Hon'ble Tribunal was required to be exercised within the prescribed limitation period.

7. That the appellant became aware of the existence of the impugned appellate order only upon physical receipt of a penalty notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer pursuant to the assessment order, wherefrom the appellant for the first time came to know that the appeal before the learned CIT(A) had already been dismissed vide order dated 10.03.2025.

8. That immediately upon such actual and first knowledge of the impugned order, the appellant acted with due diligence and without any loss of time and filed the present appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal.

9. That the delay has occurred solely on account of circumstances beyond the control of the appellant, namely non-service of the appellate order under the faceless regime and lack of any electronic or physical intimation thereof, and there was no negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides on her part.

That the appellant has a strong prima facie case on merits, inter alia, on the following grounds:

(a) The assessment for the relevant assessment year was originally completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after due scrutiny and examination of all material facts placed on record by the appellant.

(b) Pursuant to the said assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the appellant duly discharged and paid the tax demand so raised, which unequivocally establishes the appellant's bona fides, full compliance with statutory obligations, and complete absence of any intention to evade tax.