BALAMOUROUGAN ,PUDUCHERRY V. ITO, WARD-3, PUDUCHERRY

ITA 1814/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Balamourougan, against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT(A), Addl/JCIT(A)-1 Jaipur) for the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal was initially delayed by 420 days due to the assessee's unfamiliarity with the electronic workings of the department, which was accepted by the Tribunal. The primary contention in the appeal was the ex-parte assessment order under section 144 dated 28.11.2018, which the assessee claimed was unjust as he was unaware of it until his refund was adjusted against an outstanding demand. The Tribunal found that the issues concerning the assessee's salary income and accompanying claims had not been adequately analyzed by the lower authorities and thus warranted a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774719 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: TIN box 249 ITR 216
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VEERAMANY K; IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: HITESH; D.ANAND
• Keywords: Set aside; Corroborative evidences; Salary income
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु क ुमार धिरर ,न्याधयक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य क े सिक्ष BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1814/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Balamourougan, No.14, 2nd Cross, Navasakthi Nagar, Puducherry-605 009. [PAN: AGRPB3165E] Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Puducherry. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.Hitesh, Advocate for Mr.D.Anand, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Veeramany K, IRS सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / APL / S / 250 / 2023-24 / 1061496523(1) dated 26.02.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), Addl/JCIT(A)-1 Jaipur for the assessment year 2011-12. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1814 /Chny/2025 Page - 2 - of 5 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 420 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee has pleaded that the assessee is not conversant with the electronic working of the department and hence omitted to take notice of the appellate order in its mail inbox. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assessee submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assessee and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay save that costs be imposed. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the ex-parte assessment order u/s 144 dated 28.11.2018 and that the appeal was dismissed for being filed late without any justified grounds. It was pleaded that the assessee had committed delay in filing of first appeal and for which it had justified grounds. The assessee pleaded that it was not aware of the ex-parte assessment order of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1814 /Chny/2025 Page - 3 - of 5 Ld.AO and learnt of the same when its refund was adjusted against outstanding demand for the year under consideration. The Ld.Counsel vehemently argued that the assessee is small salaried employee of ICICI bank and it has all the documents in its possession to show that the addition per se is unwarranted. It was accordingly requested that the dismissal of appeal for unsatisfactory and unjustified delay reasons has caused grave injustice to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel submitted the matter may be restored to Ld. AO for readjudication on its merits and that it shall make full compliance to the notices of Ld. AO. In support of its contentions, the Ld. Counsel filed a paper book. 4.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. 5.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that the assessee is a employee of ICICI bank. We have also noted that the proceedings u/s 147 were initiated as the assessee was reportedly in receipt of salary of Rs.7,02,799/- and for which no return of income was filed. Admittedly, the assessee could not make any compliance before the Ld.AO. We have also noted that except for relying upon judicial ratios, the Ld.CIT(A) has not given any finding as to the reasons for delay being unjustified. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that the issue of salary income and accompanying claim of expenses etc have not been objectively and comprehensively analyzed by the lower authorities. We are of the view Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1814 /Chny/2025 Page - 4 - of 5 that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present its case and filed supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. Without prejudice it has also been noted that in this case the Ld. AO did not have adequate opportunities to examine the varied facts seminal therein. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. Accordingly, the order of lower authorities on this issue stands set aside and the matter supra stands remitted back to the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication de novo by passing a speaking order. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Any non-compliance on the part of the assesse can be adversely viewed. The assessee is at liberty to produce all the evidences filed through its paper book before us including any other evidences deemed relevant in support of its claims before the Ld. AO during the readjudication proceedings. This order is subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days of the receipt of this order. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1814 /Chny/2025 Page - 5 - of 5 Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 3rd , Sept-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- (मनु क ुमार धिरर) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member Sd/- (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 3rd , Sept-2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF Printed from counselvise.com "