BHAVARIBAI, L/H. AJEETHRAJ CHORDIA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-4(5), CHENNAI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ यायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ी एबी टी. वक
, ाियक सद एवं
एवं
एवं
एवं
ी अिमताभ शुा, लेखा सद के सम
BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1432/Chny/2025
िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: 2012-13
Mr. Bhavaribai,
[rep. by Legal Heir,
Mr.Ajeethraj Chordia],
23, General Muthiah Mudali Street,
Sowcarpet,
Chennai-600 079. v.
The ITO,
Non-Corporate Ward-4(5),
Chennai.
[PAN: AAIPB 9753 D]
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)
(यथ/Respondent)
अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by :
Mr.N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
यथ क ओर से /Respondent by :
Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
सुनवाईकतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
15.07.2025
घोषणाकतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
25.08.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 17.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2012-13. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order qua assessee.
According to the Ld.AR, the Ld.CIT(A) had issued notices on two (2)
Bhavaribai
:: 2 ::
occasions on 20.02.2025 & 28.02.2025 and thereafter on 10.03.2025 and finding no response had passed the order on 17.03.2025. Thus, according to the Ld.AR, within ‘45’ days, the whole exercise of issuing notices and dismissal of appeal happened. According to the Ld.AR, assessee didn’t receive any notices may be due to technical glitches in the internet. Therefore, he was prevented from participating in the proceedings. Hence, prayed for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A).
3. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee.
4. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the aforesaid submissions and after going through the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), we find that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal only on the ground that the assessee didn’t respond to his three (3) notices, within a period of ‘45’ days. In this regard, the Ld.AR brought to our notice that due to technical glitches, the assessee wasn’t aware of the notices which may have gone to the ‘spam’ account, which led to the Ld.CIT(A) passing the impugned order. Be that as it may, we note that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order, without hearing the assessee which is in violation of natural justice. Therefore, we don’t countenance the action of the Ld.CIT(A) since he was duty bound to pass
Bhavaribai
:: 3 ::
order in accordance with sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 by passing a reason order on the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Having not done so, we set aside the same and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the grounds of appeal in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.
5. The Ld.AR has undertaken to appear and file all the relevant documents/written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) and present their case without fail, which we expect him to do.
6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 25th day of August, 2025, in Chennai. (अिमताभ शुा)
(AMITABH SHUKLA)
लेखा सदय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबी टी. वक
)
(ABY T. VARKEY)
याियक सदय/JUDICIAL MEMBER
चे ई/Chennai,
!दनांक/Dated: 25th August, 2025. TLN
आदेश क ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ /Appellant
2. थ /Respondent
3. आयकरआयु/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore.
4. िवभागीयितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF