KALAISELVI,CHENNAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI

ITA 3196/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Smt. Kalaiselvi against the order of the CIT(A) - NFAC, which was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a delay of 127 days in filing the appeal, as the assessee failed to provide a formal petition for condonation of delay. The assessee claimed that she did not receive any hearing notices from the CIT(A)'s office, which led to the belated filing. The ITAT found reasonable cause for the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on the merits, contingent upon the condonation of delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469612 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: ANANDD BABUNATH; C.A
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• 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.: 3196/CHNY/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt.Kalaiselvi, #1, Kulakarai Street, Poonamallee-600 056. PAN: EBCPK-1786-C Vs. Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-8(5) Chennai. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Mr.Anandd Babunath, C.A ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 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 26.10.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 355 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the - 2 - ITA No.3196/CHNY/2024 reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated for late filing of the appeal is that assessee has never received any hearing notices from Office of First Appellate Authority and was not aware of the impugned order being passed. It is stated that the assessee came to know of impugned order being passed only on 05.12.2024 when he was informed by the jurisdictional income-tax office demanding tax liability against assessment. 3. On perusal of the aforesaid reasons in the condonation application, we are of the view that there is reasonable 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. We find that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order, dismissing the appeal in limine, without condoning delay of 127 days in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) has observed at para 6 of the impugned order though the assessee had submitted certain grounds for the delay in filing appeal vide Column No.15 of Form No.35, she has failed to file formal petition seeking condonation of delay along with affidavit and supporting documentary evidence to demonstrate ‘sufficient cause’. - 3 - ITA No.3196/CHNY/2024 5. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that assessee was never in receipt of hearing notices issued from Office of the CIT(A). Hence, the assessee could not explain reasons for belated filing of appeal before CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to explain reasons for delay in filing before CIT(A). 6. The Ld.DR supported orders of AO and CIT(A). 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused material on record. We find that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had represented her case before the AO. It is the claim of Ld.AR that assessee was never in receipt of hearing notices sent through e-mail ID. It is stated by the Ld.AR that assessee is an agriculturist and not a computer literate and do not view the e-mail. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to various notices issued from the Office of the First Appellate Authority. However, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to explain reasons for belated filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, this appeal is restored to the files of CIT(A). The assessee is directed to file a petition for condonation of delay and a supporting affidavit stating - 4 - ITA No.3196/CHNY/2024 reasons for belated filing the appeal before CIT(A). Needless to say, in the event CIT(A) condones delay, he shall adjudicate the matter on merits. 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 28th 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 28th 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. "