RAJAMANICKAM VIJAYAKUMAR,THANJAVUR V. ITO, WARD 1, THANJAVUR

ITA 2062/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Rajamanickam Vijayakumar, a senior citizen and the appellant, who faced a delay in filing an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 1, Thanjavur, for the Assessment Year 2022-23. The FAA dismissed the appeal in limine due to a 42-day delay, which the FAA did not condone, citing various judicial precedents. The assessee argued that the delay was due to unawareness of the notices and the order passed by the AO, as he relied on his son and a CA office for communication, which were not properly managed due to personal issues and structural changes in the CA office. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay reasonable and set aside the FAA's order, remitting the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity for the assessee to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717301 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BIPIN C.N
• Assessee Lawyers: T.V. MUTHU ABIRAMI
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘सी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी अिमताभ शु᭍ला, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2062/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year:2022-23 Shri Rajamanickam Vijayakumar, 62, Membalam Shivaji Nagar, Thanjavur – 613 001. PAN: ABPPV 4129H Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Thanjavur (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Ms.T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Bipin C.N, CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07.08.2025 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 11.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 11.07.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2022-23. Printed from counselvise.com - 2 - ITA No.2062/CHNY/2025 2. At the very outset, we notice that First Appellate Authority (FAA) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits. The FAA held that there is a delay in filing the appeal before him and there is no reasonable cause for condoning the same. 3. On perusing the order of the FAA, we noted that the assessee had filed the appeal with a delay of 42 days. The delay has not been condoned by the FAA. The reasons stated by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal before the FAA was that, the assessee came to know about the order passed by the AO only after he received a call from the CPC regarding the tax demand on 10.04.2025. The assessee had submitted that he was unaware of the notices sent through e-mail since the e-mail id belonged to his son, who had not passed on the information to him. Even the secondary e-mail id also belonged to CA office due to structural change in his CA office and subsequent transfer of his file from one auditor to another. From the order of the AO, it is noticed that the notice sent through registered post has not been returned back. Therefore, the assessee stated that he was unaware of the notices and the order passed by the AO. The assessee came know about the order passed by the AO only on 10.04.2025, when he received a call from CPC regarding tax Printed from counselvise.com - 3 - ITA No.2062/CHNY/2025 demand. However, the due date for filing of appeal was 19.04.2025. The assessee immediately took steps to file the appeal through his CA, which was filed on 30.05.2025 resulting in delay of filing of appeal. However, the FAA rejected the assessee’s request for condonation and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by relying on various judicial precedent. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and is not well versed with the computer. The assessee has given his son’s email id while filing the return. Hence, the assessee has to depend on others for receiving information. But, due to certain personal issues, the notices sent through email was not informed to the assessee by his son. Later, only on 10.04.2025 when the assessee received a call from the CPC regarding the tax demand, he came to know about the order being passed by the AO. Immediately, the assessee through his chartered accountant filed the appeal before the FAA. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has also filed written submissions and documents in support of his submissions before the FAA. However, the FAA has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for delay without adjudicating on merits. The Ld.AR submitted that the order passed by the AO is also Printed from counselvise.com - 4 - ITA No.2062/CHNY/2025 best judgment assessment u/s.144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, since the assessee was unaware of the notices issued by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Hence, 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. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. We noticed that the assessee is a senior citizen who is not proficient in using computers and dependent on others for receiving information/notices which has been sent through mail. The Ld.AR stated that the assessee came to know about the order passed by the AO only on 10.04.2025 and has filed the appeal before the FAA on 30.05.2025. The various judicial precedents relied on by the FAA is not applicable to the assessee’s case, since the delay is only around 42 days and is not an inordinate delay. In our view, the reason cited by assessee before FAA seems quite reasonable and hence, we condone the delay before FAA and set aside the order of the FAA. We also notice that the order passed by the AO is also best judgment assessment since the assessee has not appeared before the AO or submitted any evidence/documents, since the assessee was unaware of the notices issued by the AO. In light of the submissions of Ld.AR and in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter is remitted to Printed from counselvise.com - 5 - ITA No.2062/CHNY/2025 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. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th August, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (अͧमताभ शुÈला) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चेÛनई/Chennai, Ǒदनांक/Dated, the 11th August, 2025 RSR आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Madurai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "