MADASAMY CHIDAMBARAM,TENKASI V. .INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, TIRUNELVELI

ITA 2554/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Madasamy Chidambaram against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17. The primary issue was the rejection of the condonation petition for the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee argued that the delay was due to his lack of computer literacy and forgetfulness, compounded by the fact that he received the notice manually much later than the assessment order. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and decided to remand the case for a fresh decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107378 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. RAGHUPATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: R. VENKATA RAMAN
• Section: 147; 13

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ । Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2554/Chny/2024 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Madasamy Chidambaram, No. 6, Pagazhikoothar Street, Kallidaikurichi, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli 627 416. [PAN:APCPM3848K] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Tirunelveli. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee raised 13 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is I.T.A. No.2554/Chny/24 2 justified in dismissing the appeal by rejecting condonation petition for the delay in filing the appeal. 3. At the outset, the ld. AR Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA submits that by rejecting the condonation petition filed by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding the issues on merits. He submits that the assessment was completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 29.02.2024. He submits that the assessee was not computer savvy i.e., not a computer and technology literate sexagenarian suffering from forgetfulness and is not conversant with various procedures under the newly introduced faceless assessment and could not remember the login credentials. He vehemently argued that every day’s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made and this doctrine ought to have been applied in a rational and pragmatic manner as literally service of notice was only on 12.05.2024 when it was served manually by a verification team in Coimbatore and non-receipt of notice could have been ascertained from the mail whether the assessee had accessed the same or not and as such the delay of 51 days as contemplated is not a real one. Thus, the ld. AR prayed for adjudicating the issues raised by the assessee on merits. I.T.A. No.2554/Chny/24 3 4. The ld. DR Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 5. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we find that admittedly, as per filing of Form 35 before the ld. CIT(A), there is a delay from the date of assessment order passed on 29.02.2024. There was no response from assessee against the notices issued by the Assessing Officer as per para 2 of the assessment order. The contention of the ld. AR that the assessment came to the notice of the assessee when manual notice was served by the verification unit as deputed from the personal in Coimbatore on 12.05.2024 cannot be ignored. The submissions of the assessee that he hails from a remote village of Tirunelveli district and have no acquaintance with computer knowledge to operate the mail-ID. There is no finding of authorities below that the assessee has accessed the notices sent to his mail-id and failed to respond. Under the above facts and circumstances and considering the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee. The assessee is at liberty file explanation/documentary evidences, if any, to substantiate his I.T.A. No.2554/Chny/24 4 claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 19th December, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 19.12.2024 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF. "