JAYARAMAN GOPALAKRISHNAN,TIRUVARUR V. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THANJAVUR

ITA 3139/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Shri Jayaraman Gopalakrishnan against orders from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2011-12. The appeals were initially delayed due to the illness of the assessee's chartered accountant, who failed to respond to multiple notices from the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and the AO. Upon realization of the orders through a recovery notice, the assessee, with the help of a new chartered accountant, filed the appeals. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay, condoned it, and noted the ex-parte nature of the FAA's decision and the best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the AO, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and proper representation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 830848 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.KAVITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S. GIRISH KUMAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘ए’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं सुĮी पɮमावती एस, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND MS PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 3139 & 3140/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2011-12 Shri Jayaraman Gopalakrishnan, 35, AP Koil North Street, Tiruvarur, Vijayapuram, Tiruvarur – 610 001. PAN: AAJPG 5166G Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Thanjavur. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.01.2026 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed two different orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, both dated 04.01.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2016-17 and 2011-12. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.3139 & 3140/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. There is a delay of 585 days in filing these appeals. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and affidavit stating there in the reasons for belated filing of these appeals. The reasons stated is that, due to the illness of assessee’s erstwhile chartered accountant for a very long time, he failed to take note of the hearing notices and make proper representation before the lower authorities. It was further submitted that only on receipt of recovery notice on 11.10.2025, the assessee came to know about the order being passed by the First Appellate Authority. Subsequently, the assessee with the help and guidance of present chartered accountant filed the appeals before the Tribunal with delay. On perusal of the reasons stated, we find there is sufficient cause for delay in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeals and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits. 3. At the very outset, we notice that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) is ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to five notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. Further, we also notice that the assessment has been completed on best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the FAA is ex-parte and the assessment has also been completed on Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.3139 & 3140/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: best judgment basis u/s.144 of the Act. The Ld.AR further submitted that due sudden fall in the health condition of assessee’s erstwhile chartered accountant, who was handling the assessee’s financial affairs failed to take note of the hearing notice and present before the FAA. The assessee came to know about the order being passed by the FAA only on receipt of the recovery notice. Since, the assessee has not represented his case before the AO and FAA, 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 FAA and there is no 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 proceedings before the AO as well as the FAA was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to various notices issued. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee’s erstwhile chartered accountant who was dealing with assessee’s financial affairs was ill for a very long time and hence, failed to take note of the hearing notices and represent before the FAA. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.3139 & 3140/Chny/2025 :- 4 -: the offices of the FAA and the AO. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the matter ought to be restored to the files of the AO with a condition assessee pays a cost of Rs.15,000/- each (Rupees fifteen thousand in each case) to be paid to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The amount of Rs.30,000/- shall be paid within a month’s time from the date of receipt of this order and assessee shall produce the receipt for the said payment before the AO. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th January, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (पɮमावती एस) (PADMAVATHY S) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 20th January, 2026 RSR Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.3139 & 3140/Chny/2025 :- 5 -: 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. Printed from counselvise.com "