C RAVI,NAMAKKAL V. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NAMAKKAL

ITA 348/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri C. Ravi against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal was initially delayed by three days, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The primary issue was the non-compliance of the assessee in responding to multiple notices from the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order. The Tribunal noted the absence of participation from the assessee at both the Assessing Officer's and the appellate levels but decided to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, emphasizing the need for adherence to the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314278 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KEERTHI NARAYANAN
• Assessee Lawyers: T.S. LAKSHMI VENKATRAMAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ,‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एबी टी वकŎ, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी एस. आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.348/CHNY/2025 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri C. Ravi, New No.4/24, N. Goundampalayam, Thinadamangalam Post, Namakkal – 637 001. Vs The ACIT, Circle -1, Namakkal PAN : ASUPR 1888H (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) अपीलाथȸ कȧ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCA Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 05.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER S R RAGHUNATHA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 03.12.2024 for the assessment year 2011-12. - 2 - ITA No.348/CHNY/2025 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 3 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which the Ld.AR explained the reasons for delay. After hearing both the parties and considering the small delay of 3 days, 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 appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(A)’s order is ex- parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to the eight notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is an individual running a business in the name and style of M/s. Sri Ravi Agencies and a trader of maize and jowar. He further submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-furnishing of details by passing an ex- parte order qua assessee. It was prayed in the interest of justice and equity, the issue may be restored to the files of the AO as a last opportunity for proper representation of his case. 5. The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the AO and the CIT(A) and there is no - 3 - ITA No.348/CHNY/2025 violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was prayed the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Office of the First Appellate Authority had issued eight hearing notices. However, the assessee had not appeared before the CIT(A) or furnished the details. We note that the Assessing Officer has also passed order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by considering the information available with the department and made an addition and the same has been upheld by the ld.CIT(A) - NFAC due to non-participation of the assessee in the first appellate proceedings. Since the assessee has failed to participate and furnish the details both before the AO as well as the appellate proceedings, we levy the cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras and produce proof of payment of cost to the Registry within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and 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 order in accordance to law, after providing reasonable - 4 - ITA No.348/CHNY/2025 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 5th May, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी वकŎ) (ABY T VARKEY) Ɋाियक सद˟/Judicial Member (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद˟/Accountant Member चेÛनई/Chennai, Ǒदनांक/Date: 05.05.2025 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/CIT, Salem 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. "