SARPRASADAM EMMANUEL JAYASEELAN,TIRUCHIRAPALLI V. DCIT, CIRLCE - 1(1), TRICHY

ITA 2374/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Sarprasadam Emmanuel Jayaseelan, the appellant, who filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeals were initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to delays of 333 days, 194 days, and 189 days respectively, without condoning the delays. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) did not seek an explanation for the delays before dismissing the appeals. The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were not followed as the CIT(A) did not issue notices to the appellant to explain the delays. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a proper examination of the condonation of delay applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36434 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: S. SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘बी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 2374, 2375 & 2376/CHNY/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Sarprasadam Emmanuel Jayaseelan, 31, NJ Flats, Officers Colony, Puthur, Tiruchirapalli – 620 017. PAN: AAIPJ 8462F Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Trichy. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Addl.CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against three different orders of CIT(A), all dated 10.07.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. - 2 - ITA Nos.2374 to 2376/CHNY/2024 2. There is a delay of 3 days in filing these three appeals before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed petitions for condonation of delay along with the supporting affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of these appeals. On perusal of the reasons stated in the affidavit, we are of the view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of these appeals. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits. 3. At the very outset, we notice that these appeals have been dismissed by the CIT(A) in limine without condoning the delay of 333 days, 194 days and 189 days in filing the appeals before him. The ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) had taken note of the reason stated in column 15 of Form No.35 filed before him and rejected the appeals of the assessee. It was submitted by the ld.AR, the reason stated by the assessee in column 15 in Form 35 filed before the CIT(A) was in brief and the assessee did not file an elaborate condonation application. It was further submitted by the ld.AR that the CIT(A) ought to have issued notice to the assessee calling for his explanation for the delay in filing the appeals before him, before dismissing the appeals in limine. - 3 - ITA Nos.2374 to 2376/CHNY/2024 3. The ld.DR was duly heard. 4. We have heard rival submission and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay of 333 days, 194 days and 189 days respectively. We noticed that the CIT(A) after extracting the reasons stated in column 15 of Form No.35 filed before him, had dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine, without issuing notices to the assessee to explain the reason for filing the appeals before him belatedly. The principle of natural justice requires that notice should be issued to the assessee seeking his explanation why the delay in filing the appeals before him cannot be condoned. In the instant cases, such notices were never issued by the CIT(A) in all the three appeals. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that the matter needs to be restored back to the files of the CIT(A). Accordingly, we restore the matter to the files of the CIT(A) so that a proper condonation application if required can be filed by the assessee concerned and on receipt of the same, the CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee before a decision is taken on the condonation applications. It is ordered accordingly. - 4 - ITA Nos.2374 to 2376/CHNY/2024 5. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th November, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एस.आर. रघुनाथा) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चेÛनई/Chennai, Ǒदनांक/Dated, the 20th November, 2024 RSR आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Chennai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. "