RAJASEKAR KOTHANDAPANI,CHENNAI V. ITO, BUSINESS WARD 4, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

ITA 2837/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Rajasekar Kothandapani, against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Addl/JCIT(A)-10, Delhi, for the assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was initially filed in January 2010 against an assessment order dated December 31, 2009, and later migrated to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, notices were issued during a period when the assessee was out of station, leading to an ex-parte decision by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found the circumstances reasonable and set aside the ex-parte order, restoring the appeal for a fresh decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107018 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D. BABITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: N. ARJUN RAJ
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे\tई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , \u000bाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी मनोज क ुमार अ\u0019वाल, लेखा सद\u0007 क े सम\u001d BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIMANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 2837/Chny/2024 िनधा\u000bरणवष\u000b/Assessment Year: 2007-08 RajasekarKothandapani, 45 Micheal Garden, 9th Cross Street, Ramapuram, Chennai – 600 089. v. Income Tax Officer, Business Ward –IV(4), Chennai. [PAN: AMHPK-2691-Q] (अपीलाथ\u000e/Appellant) (\u000f\u0010यथ\u000e/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u000e क\u0012 ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate \u000f\u0010यथ\u000e क\u0012 ओर से /Respondent by : Smt. D. Babitha, JCIT सुनवाईक\u0012तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणाक\u0012तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This appeal preferred by the assessee trust against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax,Addl/JCIT(A)-10, Delhi, dated 20.09.2024 for assessment year (in short “AY\") 2007-08. 2. At the outset the Ld.AR of the assessee pointed out that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex-parte order. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessment order in this case was passed on 31.12.2009 u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short “the Act”) and thereafter, assessee filed an appeal in January, 2010 and later, the appeal got migrated to NFAC by order dated 25.09.2020 and the NFAC had issued altogether five (5) notices out of notices was during the Covid aspect, drew our attention to the impugned order at Page 2 and submitted that the other two notices were issued on 22.08.2024 followe on 06.09.2024 i.e. within a gap of 15 days and finding no response, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 3. According to the Ld.AR from the events stated above it could be seen that the assessee has promptly filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on 25.01.2010 against the assessment order 31.12.2009. However, Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC issued notice 14.09.2020 followed by notices on 23.12.2020 and 26.02.2021 which were in the midst of the Covid notices were issued within a gap of 15 days assessee was out of station, he couldn’t which prompted the Ld.CIT(A) to pass the ex Therefore, he prayed that the matter may be re Ld.CIT(A) and an opportunity be granted to the assessee. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR innings to the assessee ITA No RajasekarKothandapani :: 2 :: and thereafter, assessee filed an appeal in January, 2010 and the appeal got migrated to NFAC by order dated 25.09.2020 and the NFAC had issued altogether five (5) notices out of which three (3) notices was during the Covid-19 Pandemic period and to buttress this drew our attention to the impugned order at Page 2 and submitted that the other two notices were issued on 22.08.2024 followe on 06.09.2024 i.e. within a gap of 15 days and finding no response, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. According to the Ld.AR from the events stated above it could be seen that the assessee has promptly filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) .2010 against the assessment order 31.12.2009. However, Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC issued notice of hearing only after a decade 14.09.2020 followed by notices on 23.12.2020 and 26.02.2021 which were in the midst of the Covid-19 Pandemic; and thereafter the final otices were issued within a gap of 15 days (supra); out of station, he couldn’t respond to the two (2) notices, which prompted the Ld.CIT(A) to pass the ex-parte order qua assessee. Therefore, he prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) and an opportunity be granted to the assessee. Per contra, the Ld.DR does not want us to give assessee one more ITA Nos.2837/Chny/2024 [AY 2007-08] RajasekarKothandapani and thereafter, assessee filed an appeal in January, 2010 and the appeal got migrated to NFAC by order dated 25.09.2020 and which three (3) to buttress this drew our attention to the impugned order at Page 2 and submitted that the other two notices were issued on 22.08.2024 followed on 06.09.2024 i.e. within a gap of 15 days and finding no response, the According to the Ld.AR from the events stated above it could be seen that the assessee has promptly filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) .2010 against the assessment order 31.12.2009. However, of hearing only after a decade on 14.09.2020 followed by notices on 23.12.2020 and 26.02.2021 which 19 Pandemic; and thereafter the final and since the to the two (2) notices, parte order qua assessee. stored to the file of the does not want us to give assessee one more 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We note that the assessment order Act on 31.12.2009 and pursuant to it, the days [i.e. on 25.01.2010 NFAC after a decade and the first notice on 14.09.2020 and thereafter two notices during the Covid followed by last two notices within a gap of 15 days assessee was out of station. Therefore, the notices which we find reasonable and therefore, and fair play, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to his file with a direction to the appeal on merits after hearing the asses section (6) of 250 of the Act and file relevant documents/written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) is directed to decide the section (6) of sec.250 of the Act. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed purposes. Order pronounced on the Sd/- (मनोज क ुमार अ\u0019वाल (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL लेखासद\u0007य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No RajasekarKothandapani :: 3 :: We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We note ssment order for AY 2007-08 was passed u/s. 143(3) of the and pursuant to it, the assessee filed appeal on 25.01.2010] before the Ld.CIT(A), which got migrated to the NFAC after a decade and the first notice of hearing was issued on 14.09.2020 and thereafter two notices during the Covid followed by last two notices within a gap of 15 days, which time the assessee was out of station. Therefore, assessee could not respond to which we find reasonable and therefore, for the ends of justice we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to his file with a direction to the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee in accordance with sub section (6) of 250 of the Act. The assessee is also directed to be diligent and file relevant documents/written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) is directed to decide the grounds of appeal ) of sec.250 of the Act. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed Order pronounced on the 26th day of February, 2025, in Chennai. अ\u0019वाल) MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/ (एबीटी. (ABY T. VARKEY \tयाियकसद\u0007य/JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2837/Chny/2024 [AY 2007-08] RajasekarKothandapani We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We note u/s. 143(3) of the filed appeal within 25 which got migrated to the was issued to assessee on 14.09.2020 and thereafter two notices during the Covid-19 Pandemic , which time the could not respond to for the ends of justice we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to his file with a direction to decide in accordance with sub- . The assessee is also directed to be diligent and file relevant documents/written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) and grounds of appeal as per sub- In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical , in Chennai. Sd/- . वक ) ABY T. VARKEY) /JUDICIAL MEMBER चे\u0003ई/Chennai, \u0005दनांक/Dated: 26th February, 2025 JPV, Sr.PS आदेशक\r\u000eितिलिपअ\u0014ेिषत/Copy to 1. अपीलाथ\u0014/Appellant 2. \u0015\u0016थ\u0014/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u001b/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / 4. िवभागीय\u0015ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u000bफाईल/GF ITA No RajasekarKothandapani :: 4 :: February, 2025. Copy to: , Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. ITA Nos.2837/Chny/2024 [AY 2007-08] RajasekarKothandapani Salem / Coimbatore. "