ITAT Sets Aside Time-Barred Dismissal, Upholds Violation of Natural Justice
According to the principles of natural justice, a judicial decision cannot be considered valid without hearing the assessee at least once, ruled the ITAT.
Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava filed the present appeal before the ITAT Raipur, challenging an order passed by the CIT(A)NFAC on November 14, 2025. The assessee has paid the employee’s contribution amounting to Rs. 769,000; however, the A.O./CPC disallowed the same while adding the employee’s contribution towards ESI, PF, etc., claiming the assessee made a delayed payment of the same, i.e., after the statutory deadline mentioned under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee claimed the A.O./CPC mistakenly disallowed the employee’s contribution; he timely made the payment of the same before the legal and allowed time limit. Further, the amendment in Section 36(va) was scheduled to take effect from the Assessment Year 2022-23, April 01, 2021; hence, the same does not apply to the assessee’s case.
The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, where the assessee cited an earlier judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P). Ltd. v. CIT [2022] 143, based on the same issue, and the court ruled in favour of the assessee. However, the CIT(A) noted that the appeal before it was filed was almost 3 years late, even after enjoying the complete benefit of COVID relaxation. Additionally, the assessee did not submit any application seeking relaxation. In conclusion to the aforementioned findings, the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal.
When approached by the ITAT Raipur, the tribunal, after analysing the arguments of both sides, noted that the appeal before the CIT(A) was indeed time-barred by almost 3 years, and the assessee did not furnish any application seeking condonation of delay. Additionally, no one from the side of the assessee appeared in the personal hearing. However, since the assessee was never heard, hence, as per the provisions of natural justice, the assessee should be given one final opportunity to be heard and serve all relevant documents proving genuine reasons behind the delay. As a result, the tribunal remanded the case to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and deleted the impugned addition made by the tax authorities.
Citation: Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur); ITA No.744/RPR/2025; 12/12/2025; 2020-21
