VASANTHA PERUMAL,SALEM V. ITO WARD I(6), SALEM

ITA 721/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Ms. Vasantha Perumal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed a penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was initially delayed due to the assessee's lack of awareness and knowledge of the Income Tax proceedings, compounded by the absence of 'Real Time alerts' in the National Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2023. The Tribunal found sufficient reason for the delay and condoned it. The main issue during the proceedings was the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order, as the assessee had not responded to multiple notices. The Tribunal noted that the quantum assessment had been remitted back to the Assessing Officer by the CIT(A), and thus deemed it appropriate to set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the penalty and remit the matter back for fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 398114 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRYATI SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: T.S. LAKSHMI VENKATARAMAN
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘ए’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 721/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year:2017-18 Ms. Vasantha Perumal, 1/313. Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Puliyankuruchi Post, Gangavalli Taluk, Salem – 636 101. PAN: ATUPV 3076C Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(6), Salem. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCA ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 05.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 25.11.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. - 2 - ITA No.721/CHNY/2025 2. There is a delay of 38 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed condonation petition along with affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated in the affidavit for belated filing is that, there is no ‘Real Time alert’ in the National Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2023. Therefore, the assessee nor his authorized representative have received any notices vide email or to their mobile. The assessee further stated that she did not possess much knowledge and education to follow the Income Tax proceedings in Income Tax Portal. The assessee came to know about the CIT(A)’s order only when he received the notice dated 06.01.2025 to recover the outstanding demand. Thereafter, the assessee took steps to contact the Income Tax professional and filed appeal before the Tribunal, resulting in a delay of 38 days. On perusal of the same, we find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(A)’s order is ex- parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to the four notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. - 3 - ITA No.721/CHNY/2025 4. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee nor his authorized representative have received any notices vide email or to their mobile. The Ld.AR further stated that the assessee did not possess much knowledge and education to follow the Income Tax proceedings in Income Tax Portal. Hence, the assessee failed to take note of hearing notices, resulting in non-cooperation of assessee during the appellate proceedings. The Ld.AR further stated that impugned CIT(A)’s order confirms the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act, whereas the quantum assessment in regard to levy of penalty has already been set aside to the AO by the CIT(A) vide order dated 24.10.2024. Therefore, it was prayed that the issue may be restored to the files of the AO to consider afresh based on the findings in the quantum appeal. 5. The learned DR did not have a serious objection for the matter to be remitted to the CIT(A). 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceedings before the CIT(A) was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to various notices issued. However, it has been brought to our notice that the quantum assessment has already been remitted back to the file of the AO by the CIT(A) to - 4 - ITA No.721/CHNY/2025 make fresh assessment. Hence, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned CIT(A)’s order confirming the penalty levied by the AO. Accordingly, we remit the matter back to the files of the AO for fresh consideration along with the quantum appeal. 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 5th June, 2025 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 5th June, 2025 RSR आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Salem 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. "