VASUDEVAN VINOTHKUMAR,VELLORE V. ITO, WARD-1, VELLORE

ITA 846/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Vasudevan Vinothkumar against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was initially delayed due to the assessee's hospitalization and health complications, specifically kidney failures that required transplantation. The Tribunal considered the medical documents provided, which justified the delay in filing the appeal. Both the CIT(A) and the AO had passed ex parte orders as the assessee did not respond to their notices, which were reportedly missed due to being directed to a spam email account. The Tribunal, referencing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TIN Box Co. v. CIT, decided to set aside the previous orders and restore the matter for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 653056 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: TIN Box Co. v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTHAM S.MUKUNDAN
• Assessee Lawyers: GIRISH KUMAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी अिमताभ शु\u0018ा, लेखा सद क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.846/Chny/2025 िनधा\u000eरण वष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vasudevan Vinothkumar, 1, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Rangapuram, Vellore District-632 009. v. The ITO, Ward-1, Vellore. [PAN: AINPV 3990 M] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Girish Kumar, Advocate for Mr.S. Sridhar, Advocate \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.Gautham S. Mukundan, IRS सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 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 ‘Ld.CIT(A)‘), Delhi, dated 22.11.2023 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY‘) 2017-18. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the instant appeal has been filed belatedly with a delay of ‘420’ days. ITA No.846/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Vasudevan Vinothkumar :: 2 :: And the assessee has filed condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the cause for delay. On perusal of the affidavit as well as condonation application reveals that assessee has been hospitalized in Bharathirajaa Hospital & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd.for a long time due to kidney failures which resulted in transplantation of both kidneys within a short span of time and therefore, he was unable to look into the litigations/appeal. The assessee has filed relevant/supporting medical documents to show that he had kidney failures and was on regular dialysis, hence assessee prays for condonation of delay. 3. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee. 4. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the medical records, we are convinced that assessee suffered with kidney failures and has been hospitalized for a very long period which caused the delay in filing of appeal. Therefore, we are of the view that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay and therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay of ‘420’ days. However, it was brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) as well as the AO have passed ex parte orders [AO passed best judgment assessment] since assessee didn’t respond to their notices. According to the assessee, the notices couldn’t be accessed by the assessee since it was going to the ‘spam’ e-mail account of the assessee, ITA No.846/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Vasudevan Vinothkumar :: 3 :: because of which, assessee was not aware of the notices. Be that as it may, we note that the impugned order as well as assessment order are ex parte orders. Therefore, for the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A); and taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), we restore the assessment back to the file of the AO with a direction to de novo assess the income of the assessee. 5. The Ld.AR undertakes to be diligent and appear before the AO and duly answer his queries with support of relevant documents and also has furnished his contact details which are noted as under: e-mail Id: [e-mail] And the AO is directed to pass fresh assessment order in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 18th day of June, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- (अिमताभ शु\u0018ा) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सद\u0003य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0005याियक सद\u0003य/JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.846/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Vasudevan Vinothkumar :: 4 :: चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 18th June, 2025. TLN आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. \u000e\u000fथ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0015/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u000eितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF "