ANNAMALAI ENTERPRISES,CHENNAI V. .ITO, NCW-15(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2674/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Annamalai Enterprises, which appealed against the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2013-14. The appeals were initially dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to respond to multiple hearing notices. The assessee contended that they did not receive these notices and had submitted all necessary details to the AO. The Tribunal, referencing a similar case (Avdesh Jain v. ITO), decided that the CIT(A) should have considered the appeals on merits rather than dismissing them for non-prosecution. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36173 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Avdesh Jain v. ITO, [2024] 167 taxmann.com 730
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: P. RANGA RAMANUJAM
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,‘सी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी जगदȣश, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 2674, 2675 & 2684/CHNY/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16 & 2013-14 M/s. Annamalai Enterprises, No.7, 2nd Floor, Chengalvarayan Street, Shenoy Nagar S.O., Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030. PAN: AAMFA 8156H Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, CA ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओ रसे/Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against three different orders of CIT(A), all dated 21.08.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, - 2 - ITA Nos.2674, 2675 & 2684/CHNY/2024 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2013-14. 2. At the very outset, we notice that the appeals of the assessee have been dismissed for non-prosecution of its cases. In response to four hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority, the assessee has not furnished its submissions or any documentary evidences. Consequently the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in-limine for non- prosecuting its cases. 3. The ld.AR submitted that the hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority were never received by the assessee and the CIT(A) has erred in dismissed the appeals in- limine for non-prosecution. He further submitted that the assessee has submitted all the details before the AO and based on that, the CIT(A) ought have decided the appeals on merits. It was prayed that in the interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to represent its cases. 4. The ld.DR supported the orders of the CIT(A). - 3 - ITA Nos.2674, 2675 & 2684/CHNY/2024 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Office of the First Appellate Authority had issued four hearing notices and since there was no response from the assessee to the notices issued, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. It is the claim of the ld.AR that the notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority were never received by the assessee. We are of the view that the CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) ought to have decided the issues on merits when necessary documentary evidences were on record. In this context, we rely on the Raipur Bench order of the Tribunal in the case of Avdesh Jain v. ITO, reported in [2024] 167 taxmann.com 730. In the interest of justice and equity, we remit the matter back to the files of the CIT(A) for consideration of issues on merits after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee to represent its cases. Accordingly the issues raised in these appeals are restored to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly. - 4 - ITA Nos.2674, 2675 & 2684/CHNY/2024 6. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th December, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जगदȣश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चेÛनई/Chennai, Ǒदनांक/Dated, the 18th December, 2024 RSR आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Chennai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. "