ANNAMALAI PALANIAPPAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ ायपीठ चेई म।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Annamalai Palaniappan,
35, Orur Olcott Road, 5th
Avenue, Besant Nagar S.O.,
Besant Nagar, Chennai-600090
(Tamil Nadu)
Non-Corporate Circle 7(1),
Chennai.

Appellant/ Assessee

Respondent/ Revenue

Assessee represented by Shri K. Subash Anbarasu, Advocate &
Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate.
Department represented by Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT.
Date of hearing
16/09/2025
Date of pronouncement
26/09/2025

PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless
Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 27/09/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21
as per ground of appeal on record.
2. At the outset of hearing, we found from perusal of record that there is a delay of 216 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal for which, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit mentioning the fact as under:
 The Petitioner submits that the Assessing officer has passed an order under section143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 16.09.2022 whereby an 2
ITA1918/Chny/2025
1,74,47, 400/-Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'].
The Petitioner submits that the notices during the course of appellate proceedings were sent to the email id palaniappan@karpagambal.com as per the e-filing portal. The Petitioner states that he was not aware of the said notices and did not participate in the appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte and the order was also served to the same email id ie palariappan@karpagambal.com as per the e-filing portal.
The Petitioner states he was totally unaware that the appellate proceedings got concluded. The Petitioner states that he had even re-checked if notices/order was received in this email id. However, no emails as were received from the income tax department as stated in the income tax- efiling portal. The Petitioner was thus totally unaware of the appellate proceedings and was under the bonafide belief that his authorised representative was handling the appeal proceedings.
 The Petitioner states his authorised representative had informed him on 11.06.2025 that a notice under section 270A r.w.s. 274 was received by him in respect of the impugned AY. The Petitioner states that his authorised representative had also informed that he had only received email in respect of AY 2020-21 for the first time. He had also informed that since penalty proceedings are initiated, the appeal filed before the CIT(A) would have got dismissed. The Petitioner states that he had requested his authorised representative to check on the status of the appeal. Only thereafter, the Petitioner came to know that multiple notices were sent via email and the appeal was also dismissed vide the impugned order. The Petitioner states that it was to his utter shock and dismay that the appellate proceedings got concluded even without serving any physical notice on the Petitioner. Further, even the appellate order was also not served on him physically. The Petitioner states that he did not receive any direct communication or notice regarding the impugned proceedings and became aware of the same only on receipt of penalty notice dated
11.06.2025 by his authorised representative.

3
ITA1918/Chny/2025
 The Petitioner submits that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte vide his order dated 27.09.2024. The Petitioner states that the due date for the filing of the appeal was 27.11.2024. The Petitioner states that however by filing the appeal on 4/7/2025, there is a delay of 220 days. The Petitioner states that the delay is only on account of bonafide reasonable cause as stated above. The delay was primarily due to the appellant's lack of knowledge about the ongoing penalty proceedings and the fact that the appellant was not able to access the necessary information via the portal on time. And, this delay was purely due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control.
 The Petitioner also submits that the delay is only on account of the reasons as stated above and the delay in filing the appeal is neither willful nor wanton and is only due to afore mentioned reason.
 The petitioner submits that there is a strong prima facie case on merits, and it would be in the interest of justice to allow the appeal to be heard on its merits rather than dismissing it on the grounds of delay. The petitioner states that if the delay is not condoned and the appeal is dismissed at the threshold, it will cause significant hardship to him. Conversely, no substantial hardship will be caused to the revenue if the delay is condoned and the appeal is heard on merits.
 In view of the above, the petitioner humbly prays that your Honours may be pleased to condone the delay and allow the appeal to be adjudicated on its merits.
3. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue on the application of condonation of delay, submitted that the Bench may take appropriate view as per law.
4. We have considered the rival submissions. On the issue of condonation of delay, we find that the assessee submitted in its affidavit that the notices sent by the ld. CIT(A) have not been received and the order of the ld. CIT(A) was also not received on the e.mail provided by the assessee to the department. Even, no physical copy of notices and the order has been received by the assessee.

4
ITA1918/Chny/2025
7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order on 16/09/2022 by making various additions without confronting the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal by passing ex parte order. Before us, the ld.
AR of the assessee prayed to restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) as its case is good on merit and if the opportunity given, it will explain its case.
Thus, considering the prayer of the assessee, we restore the issue back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with the undertaking from the assessee that it will make all necessary compliance before the ld. CIT(A) and provide all necessary documents to substantiate its claim. Before deciding the issue, the 5
ITA1918/Chny/2025
Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2025. (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY)

JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Chennai, Dated: 26/09/2025
*Ranjan
Copy to:
1. Assessee
2. Revenue
3. CIT
4. DR
5. Guard File

By order

Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Chennai