KUBENDIRAN GOPI,CHENNAI vs. NON CORP. WARD 8(2) CHE, CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क सदस्य एवं श्री अयिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ Assessment Years: 2017-18 Kubendiran Gopi, Income Tax Officer, No.39/2A, Panjali Amman Street, Non-Corporate Ward-8(2), Arumbakkam, Chennai. Chennai-600 106. [PAN: AQPPG5861J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.Umapathy, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1075210751(1) dated 28.03.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a small delay of 13 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee has pleaded that the assessee was under some wrong impression about the continuance of first appellate proceedings. It was further submitted that the delay was also attributable to preoccupation of its auditor in some personal pressing affairs. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assessee submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assessee and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B r.w.s.144 r.w.s 115BBE dated 31.05.2023 and that the appeal was dismissed for non- compliance to statutory notices. It was pleaded that the non-compliance of the assessee was attributable to compelling personal difficulties and was not intentional. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded for setting aside the case to Ld.CIT(A) and personally assured that full compliance would now be made to the statutory notices of the Ld. CIT(A).