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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1918/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 September 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 216 days considering the facts and circumstances and the assessee's bonafide belief. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 216 days. The assessee claimed to be unaware of the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) due to non-receipt of notices and orders, both physical and email. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal due to alleged non-receipt of notices, and whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 270A,Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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.

1.

4 ITA1918/Chny/2025 Annamalai Palaniappan Vs DCIT Therefore considering the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay of 216 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and admit the same for hearing.

5.

On merit of the case, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer passed assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act by not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessing Officer made various additions. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) also not provided reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and passed the impugned order ex parte. The ld. AR prayed to restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities.

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 Annamalai Palaniappan Vs DCIT assessee shall be given reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only.

8.

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2025.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →