KANDASAMY RAMESH,KARUR V. ITO, WARD-1, KARUR

ITA 2385/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Kandasamy Ramesh against the orders of the CIT(A) and the AO, both of which were passed ex-parte. The appeal was primarily based on the grounds that the assessee did not receive proper notice due to his absence during the COVID period, and that an adjournment application submitted was overlooked by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, noting the procedural lapses in handling the notices and adjournment requests, and thus decided to remand the case back to the AO for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469864 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: S. SRIDHAR
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘बी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई 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 PRESIDENTAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2385/CHNY/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Kandasamy Ramesh, New No.22, Old No.4/48, Periyakalipalayam, Nerur, Karur – 639 004. PAN: AKIPR 8692P Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Karur. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Addl.CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 21.11.2024 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)’s order dated 29.08.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2012-13. 2. At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order. The reason for passing an ex-parte order was that - 2 - ITA No.2385/CHNY/2024 the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority for furnishing submissions / evidence/reconciliation statement in support of his case. It was submitted by the ld.AR that assessee had filed an adjournment application for the last notice issued from the Office of the CIT(A) and CIT(A) without taking note of the same, passed ex-parte order. Further, the ld.AR submitted that the re-assessment order passed by the AO is also ex-parte. The ld.AR submitted that the notices issued by the AO were during Covid period, which was not received by the assessee, since he was not in station during that period. It was submitted that assessee had received the final show-cause notice issued on 27.09.2021 asking to file reply on or before 29.09.2021, which could not be filed within two days time resulting in passing of re-assessment order ex-parte. The ld.AR submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent his case before the CIT(A). 4. The ld.DR supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(A) had issued five notices directing the assessee to file written submissions. Since there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued, the CIT(A) passed - 3 - ITA No.2385/CHNY/2024 ex-parte order. It is the claim of the assessee that assessee had submitted adjournment application for one of the notices served which was not taken note by the CIT(A). It is also noticed that the re-assessment order passed by the AO was also ex-parte. It is the claim of the assessee that due to Covid, he was not in station and unaware of the notices issued by the AO. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent his case. Since the re- assessment order passed by the AO is also ex-parte, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the AO and accordingly, we do so. The AO is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard in the matter. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st November, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एस.आर. रघुनाथा) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT - 4 - ITA No.2385/CHNY/2024 चेÛनई/Chennai, Ǒदनांक/Dated, the 21st November, 2024 RSR आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Madurai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. "