MOONLIGHT JEWELLERS,COIMBATORE V. ITO NCW 1 (4), COIMBATORE

ITA 4092/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Shri Mahasin Mallick and M/s. Moonlight Jewellers against orders from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appeals were initially dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance and non-submission of required documents by the assessees. The assessees argued that their business faced significant losses, leading to its closure, and they were unaware of the appeals' dismissal due to their lack of education and computer knowledge. The tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals and condoned the delay, remitting the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839737 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AROON PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: PRIYANKA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘डी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ 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.: 4088/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Mahasin Mallick, Madhina Nagar, 6th Street, Thirumarai Nagar, Podanur, Coimbatore – 641 023. PAN: ALFPM 2291K Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 1(4), Coimbatore (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 4092/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. Moonlight Jewellers, Madhina Nagar, 6th Street, Thirumarai Nagar, Podanur, Coimbatore – 641 023. PAN: AAUFM 9845M Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 1(4), Coimbatore (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Ms. Priyanka, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl.CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23.02.2026 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4088 & 4092/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals filed by the assessees are directed against two different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 19.11.2025 & 30.09.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2020-21 & 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 394 days in filing the appeal in ITA No.4092/CHNY/2025 before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay stating therein the following reasons for belated filing of the appeal:- “The appellant firm submits that the partners of the firm are not well educated and are not well versed with computer knowledge. The firm hired a Chartered Accountant for filing of return and maintenance of books of accounts. All the electronic communications were sent to their address and the Chartered Accountant only had access to IT Password as well. Due to the loss faced by the appellant firm huge fees demanded by the Chartered Accountant could not be paid. Hence the chartered accountant has not properly followed up the Appeal filed. The order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax act that the appeal was dismissed itself was not known to the appellant. 2. The appellant firm’s business itself winded up their Moon Light Jewellery business in the 2021 due to unbearable loss. The appellant firm’s partners have filed cases against some parties for recovery of their gold who cheated the appellant due to the ongoing legal battle, financial struggle, hardship, lack of knowledge the appellant couldn’t Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4088 & 4092/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: pursue to their appeal efficiently before the CIT appeal. The delay for said period may be condoned and the appellant firm may be given an opportunity to represent their case.” 3. On perusal of the reasons stated, we are of the view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. At the very outset, we notice that the orders of First Appellate Authority (FAA) are ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to various notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. Further, we also note that the assessments have been completed on best judgment basis u/s.144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 5. The Ld.AR for the assessees submitted that FAA had dismissed the appeals by passing ex-parte orders, on the ground that assessees did not submit any information nor filed any evidence in support of his claim nor complied with the various notices issued from time to time. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is an individual and a partner in the partnership firm ‘M/s. Moonlight Jewellers’. The assessee’s partnership firm business has faced huge loss and has become defunct and the business has been winded up Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4088 & 4092/Chny/2025 :- 4 -: and consequently, the assessee was not in a position to get the details with regard to the additions made. Hence, the assessee was seeking adjournment to the hearing notices issued from the office of the FAA during the appellate proceedings. However, the FAA had dismissed the appeals since the assessee has not produced the necessary evidences in support of its claim. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessments have been also ex-parte since the assessee did not respond to the hearing notices issued by the AO. 6. The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the AO and the FAA and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was prayed the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceedings before the AO as well as the FAA were ex- parte, since the assessees did not respond to various notices issued except seeking adjournments. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the offices of the FAA and the AO. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the matter ought to be restored to the files of the AO with a condition assessee Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4088 & 4092/Chny/2025 :- 5 -: pays a cost of Rs.10,000/- each (Rupees ten thousand each) to be paid to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The amount of Rs.20,000/- shall be paid within a month’s time from the date of receipt of this order and assessee shall produce the receipt for the said payment before the AO. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd February, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एस.आर. रघुनाथा) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 23rd February, 2026 RSR Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4088 & 4092/Chny/2025 :- 6 -: आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Coimbatore 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "