STANDARD BUILDERS,NEYVELI V. ACIT, CUDDALORE CIRCLE, CUDDALORE

ITA 187/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Standard Builders appealing against an ex parte order by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was issued without proper notice to the correct email address of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the notices were sent to an incorrect email ID, leading to the assessee's unawareness of the proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex parte order, restoring the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after proper notification.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314266 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. CLEMENT RAMESH
• Assessee Lawyers: GIRISH KUMAR
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ 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.187/Chny/2025 िनधा\u000eरणवष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Standard Builders, Y-153, Block 29 (TS), Neyveli-607 807. v. The ACIT, Cuddalore Circle, Cuddalore. [PAN:AAVFS 8468 D] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Girish Kumar, Advocate \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.03.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 05.05.2025 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 15.03.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as \"AY”) 2011-12. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of ‘225’ days in filing of this appeal and explained the reason for cause of delay. Having gone through the relevant facts which led to the ITA No.187/Chny/2025 (AY 2011-12) Standard Builders :: 2 :: delay, we find that there was sufficient cause for the cause of delay and hence, we condone the delay of ‘225’ days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 3. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that this is an ex parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, he prays for one more opportunity and in this regard, pointed out that even though the Ld.CIT(A) says that he has given six (6) opportunities to the assessee, but, the same was inadvertently sent to the wrong e-mail ID i.e. [e-mail], whereas, the correct e-mail ID of the assessee is [e-mail] and drew our attention to Page No.9 of the Paper Book to support this fact. Therefore, he prays for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A). 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee, but couldn’t controvert the fact about notices being sent to wrong email id as noted supra. 5. Having heard both the sides and after perusal of the records, we note that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order qua assessee. In this regard, it is noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has fixed the hearing on six (6) occasions, but assessee didn’t respond to his notices, hence, he was pleased to dismiss the appeal without going into the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. The Ld.AR explained the reason ITA No.187/Chny/2025 (AY 2011-12) Standard Builders :: 3 :: for not responding to the notices, and brought to our notice that the notices have been sent to an e-mail which was not provided in the return of income (RoI) or Form 35 etc., which resulted in the assessee not knowing about the existence of such notices, which we note to be correct. Therefore, no fault can be attributed on the part of the assessee for not responding to the notices issued by him. Therefore, 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 issue notices to [e-mail] and thereafter, decide the appeal on merits as per sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) and the assessee is directed to file all the relevant documents/written submissions in support of grounds of appeal, and the Ld.CIT(A) to pass speaking order in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. In this regard, cost of Rs.5,000/- is imposed which the assessee should remit to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court, and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the Ld.CIT(A). 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 05th day of May, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- (जगदीश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0001याियक सद\bय/JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.187/Chny/2025 (AY 2011-12) Standard Builders :: 4 :: चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 05th May, 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 "