SARATHAMBAL RAMASAMY,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, DHARMAPURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1091/CHNY/2026Status: PendingITAT Chennai27 April 2026AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's lack of familiarity with e-proceedings as a sufficient cause. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a last opportunity to present her case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay, citing unfamiliarity with income-tax proceedings and unawareness of the ex-parte order from the First Appellate Authority. The assessment was completed on a best judgment basis due to non-compliance with notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present her case before the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND MS PADMAVATHY S

Hearing: 22.04.2026Pronounced: 27.04.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.05.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2012-13.

:- 2 -: ITA No.1091/Chny/2026 2. There is a delay of 210 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit seeking condonation of the delay, explaining the reasons for the same. It is submitted that the assessee is not conversant with income-tax proceedings and was therefore unaware of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The assessee became aware of the ex-parte order passed by the First Appellate Authority only upon receipt of intimation regarding recovery proceedings and thereafter promptly took appropriate steps to file the present appeal. On perusal of the reasons stated, we are of the view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.

3.

At the very outset, we notice that the order of First Appellate Authority (FAA) is ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to seven notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. Further, we also note that the assessment has been completed on best judgment basis r.w.s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act.

4.

The ld.AR submitted that the notices issued by the FAA were uploaded on the ITBA portal and, as the assessee was not conversant with the income-tax e-proceedings, she failed to take note of such notices and consequently did not comply with them. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was also unaware of the ex-parte order

:- 3 -: ITA No.1091/Chny/2026 passed by the FAA. It was further submitted that the assessment had been completed on a best judgment basis. The Ld. AR, therefore, pleaded that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee and that the matter may be restored to the file of the AO to enable the assessee to effectively present her case.

5.

The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the FAA & AO and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was submitted that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

6.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceedings before the AO as well as the FAA were ex- parte, since the assessee did not respond to various notices issued from the office of the AO & FAA. The Ld. AR submitted that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to represent his case before the AO and undertook that she would duly appear and furnish the necessary details as and when called for. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the statutory notices issued by the FAA & AO. However, considering the submissions of the Ld. AR and 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 as a last opportunity with a condition assessee pays a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid to Tamil Nadu

:- 4 -: ITA No.1091/Chny/2026 State Legal Services Authority at the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The amount of Rs.10,000/- 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 assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and furnish all requisite details and evidences in support of its claim and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. 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 27th April, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (प�मावती एस) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (PADMAVATHY S) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 27th April, 2026 RSR आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Salem 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR By Order 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.04.30 10:20:10 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →