VIJAY SALES CORPORATION,VELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3 , VELLORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4352/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 October 2026AY 2013-20145 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 439 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the belated filing due to communication issues and medical ailments. The Tribunal acknowledged that proceedings before both the AO and FAA were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response to notices. While deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, decided to restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who was in turn directed to cooperate with the Revenue, furnish all requisite details and evidence, and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Vijay Sales Corporation, filed an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2013-14. There was a delay of 439 days in filing the appeal. The assessee attributed the delay to notices being sent to its erstwhile Chartered Accountant's email, leading to unawareness of appellate proceedings and the order. The assessee also cited serious medical ailments preventing effective monitoring. The First Appellate Authority's order was ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee. The assessment itself was completed on a best judgment basis under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed unawareness of reassessment proceedings due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 439 days in filing the appeal, turning on the provisions related to condonation of delay under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA), thereby violating principles of natural justice, and if so, whether a fresh opportunity should be granted. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was caused by communication failures, as notices were sent to the former CA's email, and the assessee was unaware of the proceedings. Serious medical issues and the Covid-19 pandemic also contributed to the lack of awareness and inability to monitor the case. The AO completed the assessment ex-parte without a reasonable opportunity. Therefore, the assessee pleaded for one more opportunity before the AO to present its case. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that adequate opportunities were provided by both the FAA and the AO, and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appeal should be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Hearing: 12.10.2026Pronounced: 13.10.2026

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 30.03.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2013-14.

- 2 - ITA No.4352/CHNY/2026 Vijay Sales Corporation 2. There is a delay of 439 days in filing the present appeal. The partner of the assessee firm has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. It is submitted that notices were sent from the office of FAA to the e-mail ID of the erstwhile Chartered Accountant, the assessee remained unaware of the appellate proceedings and the order passed by the FAA. The assessee came to know of the order only upon initiation of recovery proceedings by the Department. Further, it is submitted that assessee was suffering from serious medical ailments during the relevant period, which prevented the assessee from effectively monitoring the progress of appeal before the FAA. 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 various notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. The FAA had observed that assessee had neither filed its grounds of appeal nor written submissions inspite of several opportunities. Further, we also note that the assessment has been completed on best judgment basis r.w.s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act.

- 3 - ITA No.4352/CHNY/2026 Vijay Sales Corporation 4. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee remained unaware of the hearing notices issued by the FAA and the appellate order passed by the FAA, as the communications were sent to the email ID of its erstwhile chartered accountant. It was further submitted that the assessee was suffering from serious medical ailments during the relevant period, which prevented it from effectively monitoring the appellate proceedings. The Ld.AR also submitted that the assessee was unaware of the reopening of the assessment proceedings since it was during the Covid-19 pandemic period and came to know of the same only at the fag end. The assessee immediately intimated the AO vide letter dated 08.03.2022 that it was unaware of the proceedings. However, the AO completed the assessment ex-parte on 29.03.2022 without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Ld. AR, therefore, pleaded that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to substantiate its 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.

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.

- 4 - ITA No.4352/CHNY/2026 Vijay Sales Corporation

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The proceedings before the AO as well as the FAA were completed ex-parte owing to the assessee’s failure to respond to the notices issued by the respective authorities. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee remained unaware of the appellate proceedings and, owing to serious medical ailments during the relevant period, could not effectively monitor the progress of the appeal before the FAA. It was further submitted that the assessee became aware of the reassessment proceedings only towards the fag end and that the AO completed the assessment ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity to present its case. The Ld. AR, therefore, pleaded for one more opportunity before the AO and and undertook to duly comply with the notices and furnish all requisite details and evidences. 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 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

- 5 - ITA No.4352/CHNY/2026 Vijay Sales Corporation 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 13th October,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 13th October, 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: 2026.10.15 09:59:00 +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 →