ARUNA CONSTRUCTIONS,CHENNAI V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CHENNAI

ITA 900/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

Aruna Constructions appealed against the ex parte order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was based on an earlier ex parte assessment order by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that they did not receive proper notice due to technical issues, leading to their non-participation in the proceedings. The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the decision of the Supreme Court in TIN Box Co. v. CIT, decided to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing a fair opportunity to the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705236 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: TIN Box Co. v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: N. ARJUN RAJ
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी जगदीश, लेखा सद क े सम\u0015 BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.900/Chny/2025 िनधा\u000eरणवष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Aruna Constructions, No.59, Empee Towers, Harris Road, Pudupet, Chennai-600 002. v. The ITO, Non Corporate Circle-7(1), Chennai. [PAN: AAFFA 8928 E] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.N. Arjun Raj, Advocate \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 29.01.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as \"AY”) 2018-19. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is ex parte order qua assessee, and ITA No.900/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Aruna Constructions :: 2 :: he also brought to our notice that the AO has also passed an ex parte order albeit in the caption he has written it to have been passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘). On a query from the Bench as to the reason why it didn’t participate in the proceedings before both authorities, the assessee gave reasons which we will discuss (infra), and submitted that assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO, therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), he pleads that assessment be restored back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. 3. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee. 4. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the impugned order is an ex parte order qua assessee because assessee didn’t respond to his four (4) notices. In this regard, the Ld.AR brought to our notice that the assessee didn’t receive such notices due to certain glitches in the internet and the notices happened to get dropped in the ‘spam’ account instead of the e-mail account of the assessee. Be that as it may, the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) was without hearing the assessee, for the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A). Having said so, we note that the ITA No.900/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Aruna Constructions :: 3 :: AO has passed the assessment without hearing the assessee. In this regard, the Ld.AR also brought to our notice that the assessee didn’t receive any notices from the AO, because of which, he couldn’t participate in the assessment proceedings. Therefore, relying the decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. (supra), we restore the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment and the assessee is directed to be diligent to file all relevant documents to substantiate its claim and the AO to pass speaking order in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 04th day of July, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जगदीश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0001याियक सद\bय/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 04th July, 2025. TLN आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0010/Appellant 2. \u0011\u0012थ\u0010/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0018/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u0011ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF "