KAMARAJ GOVINDASWAMY ARUN RAJ,CHENNAI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), CHENNAI

ITA 2290/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the assessee, Kamaraj Govindaswamy Arun Raj, against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which were passed exparte for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had erroneously assumed that the assessee did not appear for the hearings, leading to the dismissal of the appeals without merit consideration. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals to be reasonable and condoned the delay. It was also highlighted that the assessee's representative had indeed appeared but was mistakenly noted as absent. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107386 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A. SASIKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: N. KUMARESH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ \rा यपीठ, चे\u0012ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0015ी एबी टी. वक\u001a, \rा ियक सद\u001d एवं \u0015ी अिमता भ शु$ा , लेखा सद\u001d क े सम& BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2289 and 2290/Chny/2024 िनधा (रण वष(/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Kamaraj Govindaswamy Arun Raj, No. 100, Lakshmipuram, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Chromepet, Chennai 600 044. [PAN: ANCPA2857J] Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), Chennai. (अपीला थ\u001a/Appellant) (+,थ\u001a/Respondent) अपीला थ\u001a की ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. N. Kumaresh, C.A. +,थ\u001a की ओर से /Respondent by : Mr. A. Sasikumar, CIT सुनवा ईकीता रीख/Date of Hearing : 22.10.2024 घोषणा कीता रीख /Date of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: Both the appeals preferred by the assessee are against different but identical orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC Delhi (hereinafter in short “CIT(A)\") dated 26.06.2024 for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 (hereinafter in short “AY\"). 2. We find that the appeal in ITA No. 2289/Chny/2024 was filed with a delay of 4 days. On perusal of the petition filed for condonation of delay in the form of an affidavit, submissions of the Ld. AR and Ld. DR, we find the reasons explained by the assessee are reasonable, which prevented the ITA Nos.2289 & 2290/Chny/2024(AY 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mr. Kamaraj Govindaswamy Arun Raj :: 2 :: assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 4 days in filing the appeal is condoned and admits the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset, Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the impugned orders for both AY 2015-16 & 2016-17 were passed by the Ld. CIT(A) qua the assessee exparte and that even though the authorized representative of the assessee Shri Ramesh Babu, CA appeared before the Ld. CIT(A), he mistakenly held that the assessee didn’t represent the case before him. Therefore, he has inadvertently passed the impugned orders without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for both AY 2015-16 & 2016-17. Therefore, the Ld. AR prayed that one more opportunity may be granted before the first appellate authority. 4. Per contra, the Ld. DR does not want to give one more innings to the assessee. 5. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) are exparte orders without going into the merits of the case. It has been brought to our notice that the assessee’s authorized representative Shri Ramesh Babu, CA represented the assessee and ITA Nos.2289 & 2290/Chny/2024(AY 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mr. Kamaraj Govindaswamy Arun Raj :: 3 :: appeared on his behalf, but Ld. CIT(A) on wrong assumption of fact that assessee failed to appear during the hearing has dismissed the appeals. We do not countenance such an action of the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore back these appeals to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the grounds of appeal in accordance with sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act for both AY 2015-16 & 2016-17. The Ld. AR has undertaken to appear as well as file relevant documents to substantiate the grounds of appeal. And the Ld. CIT(A) to pass reasoned orders on the grounds of appeal raised after hearing the assessee. 6. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 06th December, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- (अिमताभ शु ा) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सद\u0003य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक\u0012) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0005याियक सद\u0003य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे\u0003ई/Chennai, िदनांक/Dated: 06th December, 2024. Vm/- आदेश की +ितिलिप अ0ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u001a/Appellant, 2.+,थ\u001a/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु1/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय +ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड( फाईल/GF. "