RAMASAMY KALIDASAN,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), SALEM
आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘बी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ के, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सदèय के सम¢
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND
SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1982/CHNY/2025
िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2011-12
Shri Ramasamy Kalidasan,
1/85, Kumaripalayam,
Mohanur,
Namakkal – 637 015. PAN: BUIPK 6746A
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Ward 1(3),
Salem.
(अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant)
(ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent)
अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman,
F.C.A ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT
सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16.09.2025
घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 17.09.2025
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 20.03.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant
Assessment Year is 2011-12. :- 2 -:
2. There is a delay of 410 days in filing the appeal. The appeal ought to have been filed before ITAT on or before 30.05.2024. However, the appeal was filed belatedly on 15.07.2025. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and affidavit stating there in the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated are as follows:-
3. I received a letter dated 24.06.2025 from ITO, Ward 2, Namakkal regarding arrears demand for the AY 2011-12. The above letter was received through postal communication. I took the above notice to the knowledge of CA.T.S.Lakshmivenkataram,
Salem for receiving professional guidance in the first week of July, 2025. On receipt of the above notice, the above Chartered Accountant found in the above letter that the CIT(Appeals) by order dated 20.03.2024 have already dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The above Chartered Accountant opined that appeal has to be filed immediately with ITAT, Chennai Benches and the appeal papers were made ready and the appeal was filed on 15.07.2025. 4. Apart from the above factor the concept of *Real Time alert" is not available in the National Faceless Appeal Scheme. The above concept has not been inducted into the National Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2023 and hence neither the appellant nor his authorized representative had been served with any notices vide email or to their mobile. The receipt of the appellate order was seen by my Chartered Accountant on receipt of the above letter dated 24.06.2025. 5. The belated filing of the appeal is neither willful nor wanton. The delay occurred due to lack of proper professional guidance and lack of intimation of appellate order passed.
6. Apart from the above factors, I am 57 years old and I am not sufficiently competent to effectively follow digital communications.
7. It is also submitted that the first appeal has been filed within the prescribed time limit which demonstrates that I am not a willful defaulter in tiling the appeal. To support the above fact, I submit that the assessment order dated 23.12.2019 was served on 02.01.2020 and the appeal was filed on 27.0 1.2020 which is well within the prescribed 30 days time limit.
:- 3 -:
On perusal of the same, we find there is sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.
At the very outset, we notice that the order passed by the 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 notice that the assessment has been completed on best judgment assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act.
The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the FAA is ex-parte and the assessment has also been completed on best judgment basis u/s.144 of the Act. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee is 57 years old and is not competent to follow digital communication. The Ld.AR submitted that the hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) were not sent to the assessee’s email id or there is no real time alert. Therefore, the assessee was unaware of the hearing notices and hence, the assessee could not appear during the appellate proceedings. It was prayed that in the interest of justice and equity, the issue may be restored to the files of the FAA for proper representation of his case. :- 4 -:
The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the AO and the FAA and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was prayed the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.
We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceedings before the AO as well as the FAA was ex- parte, since the assessee did not respond to various notices issued. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee was unaware of the income- tax proceedings and did not take note of the notices issued by the FAA in the income tax portal. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the offices of the FAA and the AO. However, 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.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The amount of Rs.10,000/- 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 :- 5 -: assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17th September, 2025 at Chennai. (एस.आर. रघुनाथा)
(S.R. RAGHUNATHA)
लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(जॉज[ जॉज[ के)
(GEORGE GEORGE K)
उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT
चे᳖ई/Chennai,
ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 17th September, 2025
RSR
आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant
Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Salem 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR
गाड[ फाईल/GF.