MUTHUKRISHNAN JEYAPRAKASH NARAYANAN, ,MAHARAJA NAGAR, TIRUNELVELI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, TIRUNELVELI, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TIRUNELVELI

ITA 1029/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Muthukrishnan Jeyaprakash Narayanan against the ex-parte orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The appeals were filed due to the non-receipt of notices by the assessee, which led to the ex-parte decisions. The assessee's auditor, who had been handling the case, passed away, and the assessee was unaware of this until he received a demand notice in March 2025. The Tribunal found that the non-appearance and non-response to the notices were not due to any negligence on the part of the assessee but were influenced by external factors such as the pandemic and the auditor's illness and subsequent death. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to set aside the ex-parte orders and remand the case back to the Ld.CIT(A) for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716911 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T.VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी जगदीश, लेखा सद क े सम\u0015 BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1028 & 1029/Chny/2025 िनधा\u000eरणवष\u000e/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Muthukrishnan Jeyaprakash- Narayanan, No.4, 24, Vasanth Vijayam, Cross Street, Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli-627 011. v. The ACIT, Circle-1, Tirunelveli. [PAN: AACPN 6743 M] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.T. Vasudevan, Advocate \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : DR is on leave सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 26.09.2022 for the Assessment Years (hereinafter referred to as \"AY”) 2012-13 & 2013- 14. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC were ex parte orders on the Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1028 & 1029/Chny/2025 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Muthukrishnan Jeyaprakash Narayanan :: 2 :: ground that the assessee didn’t respond to his four (4) notices of the Ld.CIT(A). According to the Ld.AR, since notices couldn’t be served upon the assessee, hence, assessee couldn’t respond to the notices of the Ld.CIT(A), which led to the passing of impugned ex parte orders qua assessee. And because of this reasons, the assessee was not even aware of the passing of impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A). In this regard, the Ld AR brought to our notice also that assessee’s Auditor, Shri G. Ramalingam, to whom the case was entrusted had passed away on 24.11.2023 due to cancer and the assessee was not even aware of his demise and came to know only such fact, when assessee received demand notice in the first week of March, 2025 and drew our attention to the Death Certificate. In order to buttress the fact that late G. Ramalingam was his AR who represented the assessee during assessment proceedings, he drew our attention to the assessment order viz first para wherein the AO has acknowledged that Shri G. Ramalingam had appeared before him on behalf of assessee which fact we find to be correct. According to the assessee, then he immediately collected the case file from the late Auditor’s Office and handed over the same to the present Authorized Representative, Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate, who immediately filed the appeal before this Tribunal; and in that process, there is a delay of ‘867’ days in filing of appeals. The assessee is noted to have filed notarized affidavit along with condonation application, contents Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1028 & 1029/Chny/2025 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Muthukrishnan Jeyaprakash Narayanan :: 3 :: of which has been asserted/narrated supra. Therefore, in the absence of any other material to contradict the same, we note that reason for delay in filing of appeal are not because of any negligence or delay tactics adopted by assessee, but because of reasons which were not under his control/attributable to him. Therefore, for the ends of justice and fair play, we are inclined to condone the delay and proceed to dispose of appeals on its own merits. 3. As rightly pointed out by the Ld.AR, we find that impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) are ex-parte orders without hearing the assessee and therefore, there is a per-se violation of natural justice. As noted supra, the assessee didn’t receive the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) on four (4) occasions i.e. on 21.05.2021, 08.07.2021 & 12.07.2022, & 05.08.2022. Out of which, we note that two (2) dates fall within the period of Covid-19 pandemic and the other two were in the month of July & August, 2022 when the assessee’s Auditor, Shri G. Ramalingam was undergoing fourth stage of cancer treatment and can’t be expected to respond, hence, we are of the view that the assessee should not be penalized for the non- appearance of Shri G. Ramalingam who passed away on 24.11.2023. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeals back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the grounds of appeal in accordance to law as per sub- section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after hearing the Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1028 & 1029/Chny/2025 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Muthukrishnan Jeyaprakash Narayanan :: 4 :: assessee. The assessee is directed to be diligent and file all the relevant documents to support the grounds of appeal as well as file written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) without fail and the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. 4. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 22nd day of August, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जगदीश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0001याियक सद\bय/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 22nd August, 2025. TLN आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0010/Appellant 2. \u0011\u0012थ\u0010/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0018/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u0011ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "