MRS. SUGANTHI,TRICHY vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TRICHY
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.: 2026/CHNY/2025
िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year:2019-20
Smt. Suganthi,
1-128 Nadu Theru,
Srinivasa Nallur
Maganthiramangalam,
Trichy – 621 209. PAN: JONPS 9267D
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Ward 2(1),
Trichy.
(अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant)
(ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent)
अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri R. Prasanna Venkatesan, CA
ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17.09.2025
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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre
(NFAC), Delhi dated 13.06.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2019-20. 2. At the very outset, we notice that First Appellate Authority (FAA) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits. The FAA held that there is a delay of 153 days in filing the appeal before him and there is no reasonable cause for condoning the same.
Further, we also notice that the assessment has been completed on best judgment assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act.
On perusing the order of FAA, we noted that the assessee has filed the reason for delay in filing the appeal before him. The FAA had reiterated the reason for delay submitted by the assessee at para 2.7. The assessee has submitted that her auditor had passed away on 13.10.2023. All notices/communications during the assessment proceedings were sent to the auditor’s email id. Therefore, the assessee was unaware of the notices and order passed by the AO. The assessee came to know about the order being passed, only when she received the hard copy of penalty notice. Immediately, the assessee found a new auditor and filed the appeal. Therefore, there was a delay in filing the appeal before him. However, the FAA rejected the assessee’s request for condonation by holding that there is no reasonable cause and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In our view, the reason cited by assessee before FAA seems quite reasonable and hence, we condone the delay before FAA. Therefore, we set aside the order of FAA. 4. We also note that the order passed by the AO is also best judgment since assessee has not responded to the notices issued from the office of the AO. The Ld.AR stated the same reason that the notices were sent to assessee’s auditor e-mail id, who had passed away during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, assessee was unaware of the hearing notices and hence, could not appear before the AO during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the Ld.AR prayed that the issue may be restored to the files of the AO as a last opportunity for proper representation of his case. 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 as a last opportunity. 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 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
चेÛनई/Chennai,
Ǒदनांक/Dated, the 17th September, 2025
RSR
आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to:
अपीलाथȸ/Appellant
Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Madurai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF.