CHINNASAMY GANESH NAIDU VIJAYAVANI,KRISHNAGIRI V. ITO, WARD-1, HOSUR

ITA 1696/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Chinnasamy Ganesh Naidu Vijayavani against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed an ex parte order passed by the AO for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The primary contention was the violation of natural justice, as the assessee claimed not to have received proper notice or opportunity to present his case before the lower authorities. The Tribunal noted the procedural lapses and referenced the Supreme Court's decision in TIN Box Co. v. CIT to support the restoration of the case to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 106989 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2024
• 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: SAMUEL PITTA
• Assessee Lawyers: D.ANAND
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 20

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे\tई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , \u000bाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी मनोज क ुमार अ\u0019वाल, लेखा सद\u0007 क े सम\u001d BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1696/Chny/2024 िनधा\u000eरण वष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Chinnasamy Ganesh Naidu- Vijayavani, 169, SIPCOT Housing Colony, Mookandapally Dharga Hosur, Krishnagiri-635 126. v. The ITO, Ward-1, Hosur. [PAN: AHFPV 9949 M] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.D. Anand, Advocate \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Dr. Samuel Pitta, JCIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024 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 in short \"the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 05.03.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short \"AY”) 2015-16. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of ‘34’ days in filing of this appeal and assessee has filed condonation petition. Having ITA No.1696/Chny/2024 (AY 2015-16) Chinnasamy Ganesh Naidu Vijayavani :: 2 :: perused the same, we are satisfied that there is reasonable cause for delay. So, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) passing an ex parte order and that too without passing a speaking order has confirmed the ex parte order passed by the AO. The Ld.AR submitted that the AO has also passed an ex-parte order/best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short \"the Act”) without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, he prayed that the assessment proceedings be restored back to the file of the AO for violation of natural justice and also cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC). 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee. According to the Ld.DR, the assessee has been deliberately not appearing before the authorities and therefore, he should not be granted one more opportunity to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex- parte order qua assessee and likewise, the assessment order has also been framed ex parte qua assessee. According to the Ld.AR, the ITA No.1696/Chny/2024 (AY 2015-16) Chinnasamy Ganesh Naidu Vijayavani :: 3 :: assessee didn’t receive notice of hearing and only received the notice dated 01.03.2023 which was responded on 06.03.2023 and the AO had passed the order on 25.03.2023 i.e. within 20 days. Therefore, the assessee couldn’t file the relevant documents/written submissions before the AO. Be that as it may, we find that the assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A). In such a scenario, 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), we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO with a direction to de novo assess the income of the assessee. The assessee is at liberty to file relevant documents /written submissions to substantiate its claim and the AO to frame de novo assessment in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 09th day of October, 2024, in Chennai. Sd/- (मनोज क ुमार अ\u0019वाल) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद\u0003य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0005याियक सद\u0003य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे\tई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 09th October, 2024. TLN, Sr.PS ITA No.1696/Chny/2024 (AY 2015-16) Chinnasamy Ganesh Naidu Vijayavani :: 4 :: आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\f/Appellant 2. \r\u000eथ\f/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0014/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\rितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u001dफाईल/GF "