NITHAYANANTHAM BASKARAN,CHENNAI V. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

ITA 3199/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mr. Nithayanantham Baskaran against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal was initially filed with a delay of 259 days, which was condoned after reviewing the medical records and affidavit supporting the delay. The core issue arose from an ex parte order passed by the AO due to notices being delivered to the assessee's spam email, leading to a lack of representation. The CIT(A) refused to admit additional evidences filed by the assessee on technical grounds, which the Tribunal found unjust. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in TIN Box Co. v. CIT, the Tribunal emphasized the need for substantial justice over technicalities and restored the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705213 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: TIN Box Co. v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: T.R.SARATHY
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Additional evidence

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 No.3199/Chny/2024 िनधा\u000eरणवष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Nithayanantham Baskaran, #14, Dr. Vaitheeswaran First Street, Redhills, Chennai-600 052. v. The ITO, NCW-10(1), Chennai. [PAN: AGNPB 5295 R] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. T.R.Sarathy, CA \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 11.06.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 19.01.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as \"AY”) 2018-19. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the instant appeal has been filed belatedly with a delay of ‘259’ days and has filed application for condonation of delay and affidavit supporting the ITA No.3199/Chny/2024 (AY 2018-19) Nithayanantham Baskaran :: 2 :: averments made therein explaining the cause of delay. Having gone through the contents of the application for condonation of delay, the affidavit as well as medical records supporting the averments made therein, we condone the delay and proceed to examine the appeal on its own merits. 3. The Ld.AR brought to our notice that the AO passed an ex parte order because the notices issued by the AO unfortunately got delivered into the ‘spam’ e-mail account of the assessee, because of which, assessee was not aware of the notices and couldn’t represent before the AO which resulted in the AO passing best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act”). According to the Ld.AR, before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee filed additional evidences which the Ld.CIT(A) refused to admit on the specious plea that assessee didn’t file any petition explaining the cause which prevented him from producing the said evidences before the AO. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee had filed additional evidences along with the copies of relevant documents and pleaded for admitting it since it were necessary for adjudication of grounds of appeal. But the Ld.CIT(A) has arbitrarily ignored the same and has confirmed the action of the AO by passing a cryptic order. Hence, by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), the Ld.AR submitted that since the assessee ITA No.3199/Chny/2024 (AY 2018-19) Nithayanantham Baskaran :: 3 :: didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO, the assessee should be given one more opportunity before the AO. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee. In his rejoinder, the Ld.AR undertook to appear diligently before the AO and file all the relevant documents before him and pleaded for one more opportunity before the AO. 5. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the AO has passed an ex parte order [best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act]. Before the First Appellate Authority, assessee is noted to have filed additional evidences which have not been admitted by the Ld.CIT(A) on the specious plea that the assessee didn’t file any application for admission of additional evidences. We don’t countenance such an action of the Ld.CIT(A). It must be borne in mind that justice should not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. In case, if the assessee didn’t file application for admission of additional evidences, then in such an event, nothing prevented the Ld.CIT(A) from asking the assessee to explain the reason for not producing the same before the assessing authority. On technical grounds, substantial justice shouldn’t be denied to the assessee. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble ITA No.3199/Chny/2024 (AY 2018-19) Nithayanantham Baskaran :: 4 :: Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT (supra) subject to assessee remitting cost of Rs.10,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within three (3) months of receipt of this order; and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the AO and then, the AO to assess the income of the assessee afresh after hearing the assessee in accordance to law. In order to serve notices, the Ld.AR has furnished his e-mail which is also noted as under: [e-mail] 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 04th day of July, 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: 04th July, 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 "