MATHESVARAA PADMAVATHY,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TIRUCHENGODE

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 20.02.2026 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2019-20. Stay Application No.124/Chny/2026 has been filed by the assessee against the tax demand raised pursuant to the dismissal of the appeal by the Ld.CIT(A).

ITA No.2419 & SA No.124/Chny/2026(AY 2019-20) Mathesvaraa Padmavathy :: 2 :: 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee drawing our attention to the impugned order, brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee on merits and has dismissed the appeal by refusing to condone the delay of 181 days in filing of the appeal before him. The Ld.AR has filed a copy of the application for condoning delay before the Ld.CIT(A) along with the affidavit placed at page no.29 to 30 of the paper book. Having gone through the contents of the application for condoning the delay as well as affidavit, we find there was reasonable cause for delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we condone the delay, subject to payment of cost of Rs 3000/-, which to be deposited by the assessee within 03 Months from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras and submit the proof of deposit of cost before the AO. Hence, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A). Having done so, our attention has also been drawn to the assessment order passed by the AO dated 11.12.2023, which we find to be an order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (herein after the Act) adding Rs.30,13,650/- without hearing the assessee/ex-parte. Taking note of the fact that assessee didn’t receive the notices, might be due to the glitches in the system, and since assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN

ITA No.2419 & SA No.124/Chny/2026(AY 2019-20) Mathesvaraa Padmavathy :: 3 :: Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), the assessment is restored back to the file of AO for de-novo assessment. The assessee is directed to file all relevant documents as called by the AO as well file written submission. The AO to frame assessment in accordance with law after hearing assessee.

Order pronounced on the 07th day of July, 2026, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (प�ावती .एस) (एबी टी. वक�) (PADMAVATHY. S) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 07th July, 2026. KB आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF