ARAGUNTULU BALARAMRAJA RAM GEETHA,RAJAPALAYAM V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, VIRUDHUNAGAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, VIRUDHUNAGAR

ITA 331/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Araguntulu Balaramraja Ram Geetha, against the order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Virudhunagar, for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee's return of income declared a total income of Rs.7,64,410, which was subjected to a limited scrutiny due to large agricultural income reported. The Assessing Officer passed an exparte order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, making an addition of Rs.86,90,000 under Section 68 to the total income, due to non-participation of the assessee in the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) upheld this order, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee's participation in both the initial and appellate proceedings, attributed to personal hardships, and decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 313090 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KEERTHI NARAYANAN
• Assessee Lawyers: T.VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice; Recovery proceedings
• Section: 144; 68

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए बी सी डी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी एबी टी वकŎ, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ᮰ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:331/Chny/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Araguntulu Balaramraja Ram Geetha, No.141, Viruthunagar, Palayapalayam, Dharmaraja Big Street, Rajapalayam- 626 117. vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Income Tax Office, Railway Feeder Road, Virudhunagar – 626 001. [PAN: BANPR-3583-H] (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. T.Vasudevan, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Virudhunagar, for the assessment year 2018-19, dated 16.04.2024. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 216 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons for delay has been filed. In the condonation :-2-: ITA. No:331/Chny/2025 petition, it is stated that the assessee’s husband was expired on 19.07.2021 at the age of 48 years and later the assessee moved to her parents’ house with her daughter and was not aware of the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 till the recovery proceedings were initiated by the Income Tax department. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The assessee is an individual. Filed her return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs.7,64,410/-. The case was selected for a limited scrutiny for the reason large agricultural income that large agriculture income. Accordingly, statutory notices were issued to the assessee. However, the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings and hence the assessing officer passed an exparte order under Section 144 of the Act dated 15.04.2021 by making an addition of Rs.86,90,000/- under Section 68 of the Act to the total income and concluded the assessment. Subsequently, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT (A), NFAC. However, the assessee did not participate in the appeal proceedings also inspite of providing five opportunities by the ld.CIT(A) from 09.11.2023 to 08.04.2024 as noted in paragraph 5 of the ld.CIT(A) order. Hence, the ld.CIT(A) passed an order dated :-3-: ITA. No:331/Chny/2025 16.04.2024 by confirming the Assessing Officer’s order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee is a female, lost her husband when he was 48 years and was shattered with a loss of the companion who was taking care of entire financial aspects of the assessee. The ld.AR brought to our notice that both the orders of the Assessing Officer and that of ld.CIT(A) are passed without the participation of the assessee and hence, prayed for one more opportunity before the Assessing Officer in the interest of natural justice. Further, the ld.AR stated he undertakes to appear before the Assessing Officer and submit all the required information and documents as and when called for. 5. Per contra, the ld.CIT (A) fairly conceded for remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer, since the order was passed u/s.144 of the Act. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the Assessing Officer has passed an exparte order by considering the information available with the department and made an addition and the same has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) - NFAC due to non- participation of the assessee in the first appellate proceedings. Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A), to meet the ends of :-4-: ITA. No:331/Chny/2025 justice we remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) and direct AO to denovo frame the assessment order in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th April, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी वकŎ ) (ABY T VARKEY) Ɋाियक सद˟/Judicial Member (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखासद˟/Accountant Member चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 28th April, 2025 SP आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुƅ/CIT- Chennai/ Salem/Coimbatore/Madurai 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF "