K.NEELAVATHY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER O
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the Tribunal was not right in dismissing the appeals ex parte on technical grounds without affording an adequate opportunity to the assessee to be heard on merits. The Court found that a lenient approach could have been adopted to enable the assessee to rectify the defects. The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT, considering the assessee is an individual and the disputed delay was minor (10 or 15 days). The impugned order of the ITAT was set aside, and the Tribunal was directed to condone the delay, ignore the defect regarding the computation of delay, number the appeals, and decide the matters on merits after affording an opportunity to both the assessee and the Revenue. The Court exercised its discretion to condone the delay.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed appeals before the High Court of Madras against the common order dated 31.12.2018 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'D' Bench. The ITAT had dismissed the assessee's appeals for assessment years 2003-04, 2001-02, and 2002-03. The appeals before the ITAT were filed late by 15 days, and the assessee filed a condonation petition for a 10-day delay. The ITAT issued a defect memo, but the assessee did not rectify the defect. Furthermore, no one appeared for the assessee before the ITAT despite service of notice. The ITAT dismissed the appeals ex parte on technical grounds without deciding on merits. The High Court noted that the assessee had preferred appeals with a delay of 436 days before the ITAT, which was condoned by a Division Bench subject to a payment of Rs. 5,000/- to the Cancer Institute. The assessee complied with this condition.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in dismissing the appeal ex parte without giving adequate opportunity of being heard? 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in not giving directions to the Registry to give one more opportunity to the assessee to cure the defects in filing the appeals? 3. Whether the Lower Authorities have passed the impugned orders in accordance with law and well settled principles? 4. Whether the Tribunal is right in not dealing with the merits of the case in the impugned wealth tax assessments? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the ITAT should have adopted a lenient approach to allow rectification of defects and hear the matter on merits. The Revenue contended that the ITAT could exercise its jurisdiction under Rule 12 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules concerning condonation of delay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 27A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.Nos.259 to 261/2020 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 02.9.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal Nos.259 to 261 & CMP.Nos.9278 & 9283 of 2020 Ms.K.Neelavathy ...Appellant Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), Chennai-34. ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 against the common order dated 31.12.2018 made respectively in WTA.Nos. 83, 81 and 82/Chny/2018 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench respectively for the assessment years 2003-04, 2001-02 and 2002-03. For Appellant: Mr.V.S.Jayakumar For Respondent: Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by
T.S.Sivagnanam,J)
We have heard Mr.V.S.Jayakumar, learned counsel appearing for 1/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.259 to 261/2020 the appellant – assessee and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepting notice for the respondent – Revenue. 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (for brevity, the Act) are directed against the common order dated 31.12.2018 made respectively in WTA.Nos.83, 81 and 82/Chny/2018 the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench (for short, the Tribunal) respectively for the assessment years 2003-04, 2001-02 and 2002-03. 3. The Revenue has filed these appeals by raising the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in dismissing the appeal ex parte without giving adequate opportunity of being heard ? 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in not giving directions to the Registry to give one more opportunity to the assessee to cure the defects in filing the appeals? 3. Whether the Lower Authorities have passed the impugned orders in accordance with law and well settled principles ? And 4. Whether the Tribunal is right in not dealing with the merits of the case in the impugned wealth tax assessments ?” 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.259 to 261/2020 4. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for the following reasons: “2. All the appeals of the assessee are found to have been filed late by 15 days before the Tribunal. However, the assessee has filed the condonation petition in the form of an affidavit to condone the delay of ten days only. The above defect was duly notified in the defect memo served on the assessee through registered post. However, the assessee has not come forward to rectify the defect. Moreover, despite service of notice (RPAD on record), none appeared on behalf of the assessee or filed any adjournment petition. Since the assessee has not rectified the defect notified by the Tribunal, all the appeals filed by the assessee are not maintainable and accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed.” 5. From the above order, we find that the Tribunal has proceeded ex parte and has not taken a decision on merits and dismissed the appeals on a technical ground that the defect, which was notified, was not rectified by the assessee. The defect appears to be a number of days of delay in filing the appeal, whether it is 10 days or 15 days. The assessee gave an explanation stating that they had an authorized representative and while taking the appeal papers to be 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.259 to 261/2020 filed, he met with a minor accident and returned without filing the same and subsequently represented the papers without curing the defects. 6. The fact remains, on that day when the Tribunal took up the matter for consideration, none appeared for the assessee. The assessee had preferred these appeals with enormous delay of 436 days. The Hon'ble Division, which heard the condone delay petitions, took a pragmatic view taking note of the fact that the assessee is an individual and condoned the delay subject to condition that he should pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for all the appeals to the Cancer Institute (WIA), Sardar Patel Road, Adayar, Chennai-20. The assessee has complied with the condition and consequently, these appeals have been numbered taking note of the factual position and also noting that the defect memo issued by the Registrar of the Tribunal was only with regard to the computation of delay in filing. 7. This Court is of the considered view that a lenient approach could have been adopted to enable the assessee to rectify the defect and the matter could have been heard on merits. Nevertheless the Tribunal has dismissed the matter on such a technical ground. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the appeals on the file of the Tribunal to enable the Tribunal to take a decision on merits. 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.259 to 261/2020 8. Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the Tribunal may exercise its jurisdiction under Rule 12 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules in so far as the matter pertaining to condonation of delay. 9. Under normal circumstances, we would have acceded to such a prayer. Considering the fact that the assessee is an individual and the disputed/undisputed delay is either 10 days or 15 days, we exercise our discretion and condone the delay. 10. Accordingly, all these appeals are allowed, the common impugned order in WTA.Nos.83, 81 and 82/Chny/2018 dated 31.12.2018 is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to condone the delay in filing the appeals and ignore the so called defect whether it is 15 days or 10 days and direct its Registry to number the appeals and after affording an opportunity to the assessee and the Revenue, the Tribunal shall take a decision on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMPs are closed. 02.9.2020 RS 5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.259 to 261/2020 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J RS To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), Chennai-34. TCA.Nos.259 to 261 of 2020 & CMP.Nos.9278 & 9283 of 2020 02.9.2020 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026