RAMASAMY PALANIVEL,SALEM V. ITO, WARD-1(1), SALEM

ITA 1076/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Ramasamy Palnivel against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, which was an ex parte decision due to the assessee's failure to explain a delay of 92 days in filing the appeal. The ITAT noted that both the initial assessment by the AO and the subsequent appeal were handled ex parte, leading to a decision to restore the assessment to the AO for a fair hearing. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of justice and fair play, referencing decisions from the Supreme Court to support their ruling.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 708552 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: TIN Box Co. v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji [A.I.R. 1987 (SC) 1353]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: T.S.LAKSHMI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

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.1076/Chny/2025 िनधा\u000eरणवष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ramasamy Palnivel, No.2/50F Ramasundarabhavan, R.T. Nagar, Reddiyur, Salem-636 004. v. The ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem. [PAN: AIYPP 5849 A] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.T. S. Lakshmi – Venkataraman, FCA \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2025 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 28.01.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as \"AY”) 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is noted that the appeal has been filed belatedly after ‘17’ days and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the cause ITA No.1076/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Ramasamy Palnivel :: 2 :: for the delay. From a perusal of the contents of the affidavit and the application filed for condonation of delay, we find that there is reasonable cause for the delay and therefore, we condone the delay of ‘17’ days in filing of the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on its merits. 3. The Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order on the ground that there was a delay of ‘92’ days which was not explained to the satisfaction of the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, without admitting the appeal [by holding it as non-maintainable] and taking note that ‘none’ appeared on behalf of the assessee, even after six (6) notices were issued, the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Further, it was also brought to our notice that in this case, the AO has also passed best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) [ex parte order qua assessee]. In the light of the ex parte action of the AO, the assessee 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) prayed for restoring the assessment back to the file of the AO. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee. ITA No.1076/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Ramasamy Palnivel :: 3 :: 5. In his rejoinder, the Ld.AR submitted that assessee didn’t get the last four (4) notices of hearing which prevented the assessee from responding/replying to it which resulted in the AO passing the ex parte order and undertakes to appear and file all the relevant documents/written submissions before the AO/Ld.CIT(A) provided an opportunity is given to him. 6. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is ex parte order qua assessee. In this regard, the Ld.CIT(A) noted that the assessee has not bothered to appear/respond despite six (6) notices were issued to him; and also failed to furnish any reason for belated filing of appeal by ‘92’ days. Hence, he refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We don’t countenance the action of the Ld.CIT(A); and the assessee is noted to have explained the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) which we find it to be excusable since it can’t be said to suffer from deliberate inaction, or omission or misdemeanor of his AR. Hence, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, [A.I.R. 1987 (SC) 1353], hence, we condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and taking note that the assessment order has also been passed ex parte, for the interest of justice and fair play and considering the undertaken given by the Ld.AR and relying on ITA No.1076/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Ramasamy Palnivel :: 4 :: the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box (supra), we restore the assessment back to the file of the AO 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 thereafter the AO to frame de novo assessment in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 15th 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: 15th 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 "