DWARAKANATHAN VINOD,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(4), COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2092/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 August 2025AY 2011-125 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 332 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation as a 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal acknowledged the principle of natural justice and decided to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, despite agreeing with the Revenue's submission regarding the assessee's non-representation before the Ld. CIT(A). The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh hearing. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case with all evidence and documents forthwith, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to proceed as per law. The assessee's counsel assured diligent prosecution of the case. The stay petition filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Dwarakanathan Vinod, filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 19.06.2024. This order arose from the Income Tax Officer's order dated 27.12.2016, passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte. The assessee faced a delay of 332 days in filing the present appeal before the ITAT. The delay was attributed to notices being sent to an old email ID of the consultant, leading to the assessee's lack of awareness of the appellate proceedings and the ex-parte order. The assessee became aware of the CIT(A) order only upon receiving a notice for penalty levy under section 271(1)(c) on 23.06.2025.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee can be condoned on the grounds of sufficient cause, considering the circumstances explained in the affidavit. - Assessee's contention: The delay was due to bonafide reasons, including notices being sent to an old consultant's email ID, lack of awareness of ongoing proceedings, and the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A). The assessee claims a strong prima facie case on merits and that condoning the delay would serve the interest of justice without causing substantial hardship to the revenue. - Revenue's contention: The assessee is a habitual defaulter in appearing before appellate authorities, and therefore, no lenient view should be taken. The revenue prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 2. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate its case with evidence and documents, given the ex-parte nature of the previous order and the reasons for non-appearance. - Assessee's contention: The NFAC dismissed the appeal without considering submissions filed before the CIT(A)-2, Coimbatore, and hearing notices were not served on the correct email ID, preventing appearance. The assessee prayed for adequate time to file evidence and documents. - Revenue's contention: (As stated above, the Revenue argued against leniency due to alleged habitual default.)

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 01.08.2025Pronounced: 25.08.2025

O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter the “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 19.06.2024 arising out of the order dated 27.12.2016 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Non- Corporate Ward 1(3), Coimbatore (hereinafter referred to as the "AO") passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act') for the Assessment Year 2011-12 (hereinafter the "AY").

- 2 - ITA. No:2092/Chny/2025 2. The registry has noted delay of 332 days in filing the appeal. The assessee in his affidavit stated as under: 4. The Petitioner submits that the notices during the course of appellate proceedings were sent to the email id veera.udhai@gmail.com as per the e- filing portal. The Appellant had filed the written submissions during physical hearing before the CIT(A) on 28-07-2017 when the Faceless scheme was not introduced. The appellant had attended the hearing during the said time and had filed submissions. The appellant was of bonafide belief that the appeal would get concluded and order will be passed considering the submissions filed by him.

5.

The Appellant states that the appeal got transferred from the CIT(A)- physically to the National Faceless Appeals Centre. The Appellant states that thereafter notices have been sent to veera.udhai@gmail.com which is the old email id of the consultant. The main issue for non-submission of written submissions for the grounds of appeal

is that the email id in the portal is not the assessee's mail id and it was the old id of his consultant. The Petitioner states that notices went unnoticed. The Appellant states that now he has updated the email id and mobile number of the assessee in the e-filing portal.

6. The Petitioner states that he was not aware of the said notices and did not participate in the appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) decided the appeal ex- parte and the order was also served to the old email id ie veera.udhai@gmail.com as per the e-fling portal. The Petitioner states he was totally unaware that the appellate proceedings got concluded.

7. The Petitioner states that he had received a notice dated 23.06.2025 for levy of penalty under section 271 (1) (C). Only this notice was served to the Petitioner's correct email id vinod18march@yahoo.com. The Petitioner states on receipt of the notice dated 23.06.2025, the Petitioner consulted his. Authorised representative. The Petitioner states that immediately on receipt of the said notice, the authorised representative furnished reply to the said notice. While so, he had also seen the portal to check the status of the appellate proceedings. The Petitioner states that to his utter shock the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 19.06.2024. The Petitioner states that it became aware of the CITA) order only on 23.06.2025 and immediately has taken steps to file the present appeal. The Petitioner states that it was to his utter shock and dismay that the appellate proceedings got concluded even without serving any physical notice on the Petitioner. Further, even the appellate order was also not served on him physically. The Petitioner states that he did not receive any direct communication or notice regarding the impugned proceedings and became aware of the same only on receipt of notice dated 23.06.2025.

- 3 - ITA. No:2092/Chny/2025 8. The Petitioner submits that the CITA) dismissed the appeal ex-parte vide his order dated 19.06.2024. The Petitioner states that the due date for the filing of the appeal was 18.08.2024. The Petitioner states that however by fling on there is a delay of days. The Petitioner states that appeal on the delay is only on account of bonafide reasonable cause as stated above. The delay was primarily due to the appellant's lack of knowledge about the ongoing penalty proceedings and the fact that the appellant was not able to access the necessary information via the portal on time. And this delay was purely due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control.

9.

The Petitioner also submits that the delay is only on account of the reasons as stated above and the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton and is only due to afore mentioned reason. 10.The petitioner submits that there is a strong prima facie case on merits, and it would be in the interest of justice to allow the appeal to be heard on its merits rather than dismissing it on the grounds of delay. The petitioner states that if the delay is not condoned and the appeal is dismissed at the threshold, it will cause significant hardship to him. Conversely, no substantial hardship will be caused to the revenue if the delay is condoned and the appeal is heard on merits.

11.

In view of the above, the petitioner humbly prays that your Honours may be pleased to condone the delay and allow the appeal to be adjudicated on its merits.

3.

Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit by the Assessee, we condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit the appeal for adjudication.

4.

Brief facts are as under: The assessee is an individual. The assessee filed his return of income on 28.03.2012. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order 31.01.2014, which was subsequently set aside by the PCIT vide order dated 16.102.204 passed u/s.263 of the Act. Subsequently, the AO has passed the appeal giving effect order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 27.12.2016 assessing the taxable income at Rs.39,52,014/- after disallowing Rs.26,36,106/- under ‘agricultural income’. Aggrieved,

- 4 - ITA. No:2092/Chny/2025 by the disallowance of agricultural income, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Assessee further challenged the order of assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act before the CIT(A), who proceeded ex-parte and confirmed the order of the AO on merits. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.

5. Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that he has filed the written submission before CIT(A)-2, Coimbatore and thereafter the matter was migrated to National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The ld.Counsel submitted that the NFAC without considering the submissions and evidences filed before the CIT(A)-2, Coimbatore, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 19.06.2024 on the ground that no written submissions and evidences were furnished before him. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the hearing notices were also not served in the email id mentioned in Form 35. Therefore, the assessee was prevented from appearance on the purported dates. Therefore, she prayed that the assessee may be provided an adequate and proper representation time to file evidence and documents, to substantiate his explanation. The ld.DR stated that the assessee is habitual defaulter in appearing before the appellate authority hence no lenient view is to be taken in this case and prayed for dismissal of appeal.

6.

Though we concur with the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice and grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We also find that assessee has not represented before the ld.CIT(A) despite notices for the reasons stated above. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh appeal hearing after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the - 5 - ITA. No:2092/Chny/2025 assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case with all evidence and documents, forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the appellate proceedings as per law. The ld. counsel, who appeared also assured the bench that she will ensure that the assessee will prosecute his case diligently.

7.

Since we have heard the appeal and decided, the Stay petition becomes infructuous and hence, dismissed.

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th August, 2025 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →