BASKARAN T THANGAPPAN,SIRKALI V. ITO, WARD-1, NAGAPATTINAM

ITA 3166/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Baskaran T. Thangappan against the order of the CIT(A) - NFAC, which was initially dismissed ex-parte due to a significant delay in filing. The assessee attributed the delay to ill-health and issues related to the receipt of hearing notices during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay, considering the medical conditions cited and the incorrect email ID used for communication by the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay and restore the case to the AO for re-assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469614 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: N. ARJUN RAJ
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘बी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛन IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 3166/CHNY/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Baskaran T.Thangappan, 8/1, West Mada Vilagam Street, Sirkali-609 110. PAN: ALBPB-5046-P Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Nagapattinam. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms.Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.02.2025 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A) - NFAC order dated 28.08.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 42 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal and also a supporting affidavit. - 2 - ITA No.3166//CHNY/2024 3. On perusal of the aforesaid reasons in the condonation application, we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte without condoning delay in filing the appeal before him [delay of 2 years, 8 months & 4 days]. The Ld.AR submitted that in Form 35, the assessee had given reasons for belated filing the appeal on account of his ill-health. However, he could not file any supporting medical certificates. Since the hearing notice issued from Office of CIT(A) was sent to wrong e-mail ID instead of one mentioned in Form-35. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that delay before the CIT(A) was partly during Covid period. It was further submitted that the assessee had suffered from stroke and systemic hypertension – Ischemic heart decease from August, 2021 and he has been treating by Dr.P.Muthukumar in Kumar Hospital, Sirkali, even to-day. A copy of the medical certificate issued by concerned Doctor is also placed on record. - 3 - ITA No.3166//CHNY/2024 6. The Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused material on record. The assessee in Form-35 had given ill health as the reason for belated filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority. However, assessee has not enclosed any supporting evidence nor has filed an affidavit. It is the claim of Ld.AR that assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) on account of non-receipt of hearing notices, otherwise the assessee would have furnished necessary medical certificates and an affidavit for condonation of delay. The CIT(A) also has not condoned the delay primarily for the reason that no supporting evidences has been placed on record. It is a fact that hearing notice has been sent not on the e-mail ID mentioned by the assessee in Form-35. Therefore, assessee would have missed taking note of the hearing notices. Consequently, the same remained non-compliance and appeal was decided ex-parte. The assessee now before the Tribunal has placed on record medical certificates, wherein, it is clearly stated that the assessee has been suffering from stroke and systemic hypertension – Ischemic heart decease. In view of the documents now produced before us, we see no reason to remit the issue to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of condonation of delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Since, the issue before the AO was - 4 - ITA No.3166//CHNY/2024 completed on best judgement basis, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter before the AO. The AO is directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (एस.आर. रघुनाथा) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चेÛनई/Chennai, Ǒदनांक/Dated, the 21st February, 2025 DS 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. "