K. A. HABEEBULLA,SALEM V. ITO, WARD-1(4), SALEM

ITA 476/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri K.A. Habeebulla against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was initially delayed by 79 days, for which a petition for condonation of delay was accepted. The original assessment was completed on a best judgment basis under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, and the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte due to the non-compliance of the assessee with multiple notices. The assessee's representative argued that the assessee's lack of English proficiency led to the non-receipt of hearing notices, which justified a re-examination of the case. The Department's representative contended that sufficient opportunities were provided, and there was no breach of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 313095 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: SENTHIL KUMAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ,‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी मनु क ुमार िगįर ,Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी एस .आर .रघुनाथा, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.476/CHNY/2025 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri K.A. Habeebulla, Prop.: Super Pharmacy-B, D.No.208/2, Brindavan Road, Fairlands, Salem -636 004. Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Salem. PAN : AAJPH 7705C (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) अपीलाथȸ कȧ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Senthil Kumar, Advocate Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 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 25.09.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18. - 2 - ITA No.476/Chny/2025 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 79 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons for delay has been filed. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, 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 assessment has been completed on best judgment basis u/s.144 of the Act on 22.11.2019. Further the CIT(A)’s order is also ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to the six notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is an individual running a pharmacy in the name of Super Pharmacy-B at Salem. He further submitted that the assessee has failed to take note of hearing notices sent through e-mail due to lack of English knowledge, resulting in non-cooperation of assessee during the appellate proceedings. 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. - 3 - ITA No.476/Chny/2025 5. The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the AO and the CIT(A) 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 Office of the First Appellate Authority had issued six hearing notices. It was the contention of the ld.AR that the assessee due to lack of English knowledge failed to take note of hearing notices sent from the office of the CIT(A). We note that the Assessing Officer has also passed exparte order 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 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 - 4 - ITA No.476/Chny/2025 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 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 28th April, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु क ुमार िगįर) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) Ɋाियक सद˟/Judicial Member (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद˟/Accountant Member चेÛनई/Chennai, Ǒदनांक/Date: 28.04.2025 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. "