RAMESHKUMAR SREEJA,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO, PUDUCHERRY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2297/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 August 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's lack of technical knowledge and reliance on a practitioner. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with a cost imposed on the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the FAA due to non-compliance with notices, attributed to the assessee's limited knowledge and an Income Tax Practitioner's unavailability. The assessee was unaware of the proceedings until a recovery notice was received.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders warrant a fresh opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Hearing: 27.08.2026Pronounced: 31.08.2026

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 07.02.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.

ITA No.2297/CHNY/2026 - 2 - Rameshkumar Sreeja 2. There is a delay of 356 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for delay. It is submitted that the assessee has limited academic background and does not possess the requisite knowledge or technical ability to independently access and operate the Income-Tax Portal. Further, the assessee is not conversant with the provisions of the Income- Tax Act or the procedural requirements and had, therefore, entrusted the matter to an Income Tax Practitioner for attending to the statutory compliances. It was submitted that, after filing the appeal before the FAA, the ITP became occupied with personal commitments and could not attend to the assessee’s case, resulting in dismissal of the appeal for non- participation. Since no physical notice of the appellate proceedings was served upon the assessee, the assessee remained unaware of the proceedings as well as the appellate order. Only upon receipt of a physical notice for recovery of demand, the assessee engaged a new Chartered Accountant, who, upon accessing the Income-Tax Portal, informed her about the appellate order. Thereafter, on professional advice, the assessee immediately filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the delay of 356 days in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. 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.

ITA No.2297/CHNY/2026 - 3 - Rameshkumar Sreeja 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 five 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.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act.

4.

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is not conversant with the provisions of the Income-tax Act or the procedural requirements and had, therefore, entrusted the matter to an Income Tax Practitioner. However, after filing the appeal before the FAA, the ITP, due to his personal commitments, could not attend to the assessee’s case, resulting in dismissal of the appeal for non-participation. Since no physical notice of the appellate proceedings was served upon the assessee, she remained unaware of the proceedings as well as the appellate order. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessment itself was completed on a best judgment basis and, therefore, pleaded that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate her case before the AO. The Ld. AR undertook that he would duly appear before the AO and furnish all necessary details as and when called for.

ITA No.2297/CHNY/2026 - 4 - Rameshkumar Sreeja 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 the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The proceedings before the AO as well as the FAA were ex-parte, as the assessee did not respond to the various notices issued from the offices of the AO and the FAA. The Ld. AR submitted that, since the assessee is not conversant with the provisions of the Income- Tax Act or the procedural requirements, she had entrusted the matter to an Income Tax Practitioner, who, due to his personal commitments, could not attend to the assessee’s case, resulting in dismissal of the appeal for non-participation. The Ld. AR, therefore, pleaded that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to represent her case before the AO and undertook that he would duly appear and furnish all 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 with a condition assessee pays a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to be paid to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at the Hon’ble

ITA No.2297/CHNY/2026 - 5 - Rameshkumar Sreeja High Court of Madras. The amount of Rs.25,000/- 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 his 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 31st August,2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (गगन गोयल) (GAGAN GOYAL) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 31st August, 2026 RSR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Chennai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.09.02 12:52:28 +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 →