RAJA SEKHAR TADEPALLI,CHENNAI V. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

ITA 770/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Raja Sekhar Tadepalli, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was initially delayed due to the assessee's unfamiliarity with the electronic regime and incorrect email communications. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.5,88,995 to the assessee's income under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, due to non-participation in the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding the non-receipt of notices and the lack of proper representation, leading to the decision to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633285 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM; J. C.I.T
• Assessee Lawyers: S. GIRISH KUMAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘ बी’ Ɋायपीठ,चेɄई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी मनु क ुमार िगįर, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 770/Chny/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raja Sekhar Tadepalli, No.4/6 FOA & FOB, Jayaram Building, United India Colony, 2nd Cross Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle -2(2), Chennai. [PAN:AAHPR-9960-R] (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18, dated 25.07.2023. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 534 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed affidavit stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted that the assessee is not conversant with the electronic regime and was not aware about the completion of proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), since all notices were sent to email ID, other than the email id :-2-: ITA. No.:770/Chny/2025 mentioned in the form 35. Further the order of the ld.CIT(A) was come to the knowledge of the assessee, when he received the notice under penalty proceedings. Hence, there was a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. After considering the Affidavit filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual had filed his return of income on 05.11.2017 for the A.Y. 2017-18 admitting a total income of Rs.43,82,700/-. He is a director of M/s.Jayaraj International Pvt ltd. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and accordingly the statutory notices were issued to the assessee. However, the assessee did not participate in assessment proceedings, otherthan filing the preliminary documents along with Power of attorney to his CA to appear before the AO. Since the assessee failed to participate in assessment proceedings, the assessment was concluded u/s.144 of the Act dated 23.12.2019, by making an addition of credit card payments to the tune of Rs.5,88,995/- u/s.69C of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A),NFAC, Delhi. However, the assessee did not respond to any of the four notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) from 06.08.2020 to 10.07.2023 as per para 4.1 of the ld.CIT(A) order. Hence, the ld.CIT(A) passed an exparte order dated 25.07.2023 by confirming the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. :-3-: ITA. No.:770/Chny/2025 5. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee has failed to take note of hearing notices sent through e-mail, resulting in non-cooperation of assessee during the appellate proceedings as well as assessment proceedings. It was prayed in the interest of justice and equity, the issue may be restored to the files of the AO as a last opportunity for proper representation of his case. 6. The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the AO and the ld.CIT(A) 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 Office of the First Appellate Authority had issued four hearing notices. It was the contention of the ld.AR that the assessee had failed to take note of hearing notices sent from the office of the ld.CIT(A) as the notices were sent to different email ID. We note that the AO has also passed an exparte order by considering the information available with the department along with few information and documents submitted by the assessee and made an addition and the same has been upheld by the ld.CIT(A) - NFAC due to non- participation of the assessee in the first appellate proceedings. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) and direct AO to denovo frame the order in accordance to law, after :-4-: ITA. No.:770/Chny/2025 providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th June, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु क ुमार िगįर) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) Ɋाियक सद˟/Judicial Member (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखासद˟/Accountant Member चेɄई/Chennai, िदनांक/Dated, the 12th June, 2025 sp आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुƅ/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF "