ANNAMALAI PALANIAPPAN,CHENNAI V. DCIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1918/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Annamalai Palaniappan, the appellant, who contested the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which had been decided ex-parte. The appellant faced a delay in filing the appeal due to not receiving notices and orders from the CIT(A), which were allegedly sent to an incorrect email address. The Tribunal considered the circumstances of the delay and the lack of communication as reasonable grounds for condonation of delay. On the merits, the Tribunal agreed that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to present his case, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a thorough hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773949 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Bonafide belief
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ \u0010ा यपीठ चे\u0015ई म\u0018। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1918/Chny/2025 (Assessment Year 2020-21) Annamalai Palaniappan, 35, Orur Olcott Road, 5th Avenue, Besant Nagar S.O., Besant Nagar, Chennai-600090 (Tamil Nadu) PAN No. AAHPP 0725 C Vs. D.C.I.T., Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri K. Subash Anbarasu, Advocate & Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate. Department represented by Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT. Date of hearing 16/09/2025 Date of pronouncement 26/09/2025 PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 27/09/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 as per ground of appeal on record. 2. At the outset of hearing, we found from perusal of record that there is a delay of 216 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal for which, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit mentioning the fact as under:  The Petitioner submits that the Assessing officer has passed an order under section143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 16.09.2022 whereby an Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA1918/Chny/2025 Annamalai Palaniappan Vs DCIT addition to the total income of the Appellant was made to the tune of Rs. 1,74,47, 400/-Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)']. The Petitioner submits that the notices during the course of appellate proceedings were sent to the email id [e-mail] as per the e-filing portal. The Petitioner states that he was not aware of the said notices and did not participate in the appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte and the order was also served to the same email id ie [e-mail] as per the e-filing portal. The Petitioner states he was totally unaware that the appellate proceedings got concluded. The Petitioner states that he had even re-checked if notices/order was received in this email id. However, no emails as were received from the income tax department as stated in the income tax- efiling portal. The Petitioner was thus totally unaware of the appellate proceedings and was under the bonafide belief that his authorised representative was handling the appeal proceedings.  The Petitioner states his authorised representative had informed him on 11.06.2025 that a notice under section 270A r.w.s. 274 was received by him in respect of the impugned AY. The Petitioner states that his authorised representative had also informed that he had only received email in respect of AY 2020-21 for the first time. He had also informed that since penalty proceedings are initiated, the appeal filed before the CIT(A) would have got dismissed. The Petitioner states that he had requested his authorised representative to check on the status of the appeal. Only thereafter, the Petitioner came to know that multiple notices were sent via email and the appeal was also dismissed vide the impugned order. The Petitioner states that it was to his utter shock and dismay that the appellate proceedings got concluded even without serving any physical notice on the Petitioner. Further, even the appellate order was also not served on him physically. The Petitioner states that he did not receive any direct communication or notice regarding the impugned proceedings and became aware of the same only on receipt of penalty notice dated 11.06.2025 by his authorised representative. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA1918/Chny/2025 Annamalai Palaniappan Vs DCIT  The Petitioner submits that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte vide his order dated 27.09.2024. The Petitioner states that the due date for the filing of the appeal was 27.11.2024. The Petitioner states that however by filing the appeal on 4/7/2025, there is a delay of 220 days. The Petitioner states that the delay is only on account of bonafide reasonable cause as stated above. The delay was primarily due to the appellant's lack of knowledge about the ongoing penalty proceedings and the fact that the appellant was not able to access the necessary information via the portal on time. And, this delay was purely due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control.  The Petitioner also submits that the delay is only on account of the reasons as stated above and the delay in filing the appeal is neither willful nor wanton and is only due to afore mentioned reason.  The petitioner submits that there is a strong prima facie case on merits, and it would be in the interest of justice to allow the appeal to be heard on its merits rather than dismissing it on the grounds of delay. The petitioner states that if the delay is not condoned and the appeal is dismissed at the threshold, it will cause significant hardship to him. Conversely, no substantial hardship will be caused to the revenue if the delay is condoned and the appeal is heard on merits.  In view of the above, the petitioner humbly prays that your Honours may be pleased to condone the delay and allow the appeal to be adjudicated on its merits. 3. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue on the application of condonation of delay, submitted that the Bench may take appropriate view as per law. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. On the issue of condonation of delay, we find that the assessee submitted in its affidavit that the notices sent by the ld. CIT(A) have not been received and the order of the ld. CIT(A) was also not received on the e.mail provided by the assessee to the department. Even, no physical copy of notices and the order has been received by the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA1918/Chny/2025 Annamalai Palaniappan Vs DCIT Therefore considering the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay of 216 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and admit the same for hearing. 5. On merit of the case, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer passed assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act by not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessing Officer made various additions. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) also not provided reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and passed the impugned order ex parte. The ld. AR prayed to restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order on 16/09/2022 by making various additions without confronting the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal by passing ex parte order. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) as its case is good on merit and if the opportunity given, it will explain its case. Thus, considering the prayer of the assessee, we restore the issue back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with the undertaking from the assessee that it will make all necessary compliance before the ld. CIT(A) and provide all necessary documents to substantiate its claim. Before deciding the issue, the Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA1918/Chny/2025 Annamalai Palaniappan Vs DCIT assessee shall be given reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only. 8. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 26/09/2025 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard File By order Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Chennai Printed from counselvise.com "