VIKRAMAN PRABUDOSS,PUDUCHERRY V. ITO, WARD-1, PUDUCHERRY

ITA 426/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Vikraman Prabudoss, the appellant, who contested orders from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The appeals were initially filed with delays ranging from 43 to 288 days. The Tribunal condoned these delays based on the assessee's affidavits explaining the reasons for the late filing, which included not regularly checking emails and the late discovery of the orders by his Chartered Accountant. The Tribunal noted that the proceedings before the AO and CIT(A) were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance and non-cooperation, attributed to his unfamiliarity with the faceless system and e-proceedings. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, imposing a cost on the assessee as a condition for restoration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 298620 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOWTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: T.VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 250; 43

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘बी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी अिमताभ शु᭍ला, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.:426 & 427/CHNY/2025, िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.:428 & 429/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Vikraman Prabudoss, 19, Tamil Magal Street, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Puducherry – 605 011. PAN: ASIPP 9010B Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Puducherry (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam,JCIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the four different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 14.02.2024, - 2 - ITA Nos.426 to 429/CHNY/2025 18.09.2024 & 07.10.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 288 days in ITA No.427/CHNY/2025, 74 days in ITA No.428/CHNY/2025 and 43 days in ITA Nos.426 & 429/CHNY/2025 in filing the appeals. The assessee has filed condonation petitions along with affidavits stating therein the reason for belated filing of these appeals. The reasons stated in the affidavit reads as follows:- “The petitioner submits that the order of the CITA) NFAC dated 14/02/2024 from the order u/s. 144 of the officer was posted in the ITBA portal. The appeal to the Appellate Tribunal ought to have been filed on or before 15.04.2024. Instead, the appeal is filed on 12.02.2025 resulting in a delay of 288 days. It is submitted that the order passed by the CIT(A) NFAC was not to the knowledge of the assessee. It is submitted that assessee does not see the e- mail on a regular basis and so had not seen the order posted to the mailbox. The assessing officer informed the assessee about the dismissal of the appeal and the outstanding demand. Thereafter, the order posted in the portal was downloaded by the Chartered Accountant Mr.K.Rajaram on 10.01.2025 and immediately the next day, the order was sent by e-mail to the counsel in Chennai, Mr.T.Vasudevan for preparation of the appeal. The counsel drafted the appeal and sent it by e-mail on 03.02.2025. The appeal papers were signed and sent for filing on 10.02.2025. The appeals were filed by the counsel in the registry on 12.02.2025 with a delay of 288 days. The petitioner submits that the delay was neither willful nor wanton but due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. It is submitted that petitioner-appellant had sent the order in time for preparation of the appeal. The assessee would be put to considerable hardship and injury if the delay is not condoned and the appeal disposed off on merits. It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 288 days in filing the appeal for asst. year 2017-18, hear and díspose it off on merits and thus render justice” - 3 - ITA Nos.426 to 429/CHNY/2025 3. On perusal of the aforesaid reasons stated, we are of the view that there is sufficient reason and no latches can be attributed to the assessee for belated filing of these appeals. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeals and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits. 4. At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(A)’s orders are ex- parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to the three notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. Further, we also note that the assessments have been completed on best judgment basis u/s.144 of the Act. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of IMFL. He further submitted that the assessee is not well versed with e-proceedings and faceless system adopted by the Department. Hence, the assessee failed to take note of hearing notices in the ITBA portal, resulting in non-cooperation of assessee during the assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings. It was prayed in the interest of justice and equity, the issue may be restored to the files of the AO as a last opportunity for proper representation of his case. - 4 - ITA Nos.426 to 429/CHNY/2025 6. The ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the AO and the CIT(A) and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was prayed the appeals of the assessee may be dismissed. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceedings before the AO as well as the CIT(A) was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to various notices issued. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the offices of the AO and the CIT(A). However in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the matter ought to be restored to the files of the AO with a condition assessee pays a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in each of the case. Therefore, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- in each case to be paid to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, the matter is restored to the files of the AO. The amount of Rs.5,000/- in each case shall be paid within a month’s time from the date of receipt of this order and assessee shall produce the receipt for the said payment before the AO. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The - 5 - ITA Nos.426 to 429/CHNY/2025 assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th April, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (अͧमताभ शुÈला) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चेÛनई/Chennai, Ǒदनांक/Dated, the 24th April, 2025 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. "