Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were filed after a delay of 867 days due to the ex-parte orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee's auditor and authorized representative passed away during the period, and notices were not properly served.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, setting aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld.CIT(A) due to a violation of natural justice. The appeals were restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) were justified, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to the death of the assessee's representative and non-service of notices.
Sections Cited
250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 26.09.2022 for the Assessment Years (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2012-13 & 2013- 14.
At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC were ex parte orders on the & 1029/Chny/2025 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Muthukrishnan Jeyaprakash Narayanan :: 2 ::
ground that the assessee didn’t respond to his four (4) notices of the Ld.CIT(A). According to the Ld.AR, since notices couldn’t be served upon the assessee, hence, assessee couldn’t respond to the notices of the Ld.CIT(A), which led to the passing of impugned ex parte orders qua assessee. And because of this reasons, the assessee was not even aware of the passing of impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A). In this regard, the Ld AR brought to our notice also that assessee’s Auditor, Shri G.
Ramalingam, to whom the case was entrusted had passed away on 24.11.2023 due to cancer and the assessee was not even aware of his demise and came to know only such fact, when assessee received demand notice in the first week of March, 2025 and drew our attention to the Death Certificate. In order to buttress the fact that late G.
Ramalingam was his AR who represented the assessee during assessment proceedings, he drew our attention to the assessment order viz first para wherein the AO has acknowledged that Shri G. Ramalingam had appeared before him on behalf of assessee which fact we find to be correct.
According to the assessee, then he immediately collected the case file from the late Auditor’s Office and handed over the same to the present Authorized Representative, Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate, who immediately filed the appeal before this Tribunal; and in that process, there is a delay of ‘867’ days in filing of appeals. The assessee is noted to have filed notarized affidavit along with condonation application, contents & 1029/Chny/2025 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Muthukrishnan Jeyaprakash Narayanan of which has been asserted/narrated supra. Therefore, in the absence of any other material to contradict the same, we note that reason for delay in filing of appeal are not because of any negligence or delay tactics adopted by assessee, but because of reasons which were not under his control/attributable to him. Therefore, for the ends of justice and fair play, we are inclined to condone the delay and proceed to dispose of appeals on its own merits.
As rightly pointed out by the Ld.AR, we find that impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) are ex-parte orders without hearing the assessee and therefore, there is a per-se violation of natural justice. As noted supra, the assessee didn’t receive the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) on four (4) occasions i.e. on 21.05.2021, 08.07.2021 & 12.07.2022, & 05.08.2022.
Out of which, we note that two (2) dates fall within the period of Covid-19 pandemic and the other two were in the month of July & August, 2022 when the assessee’s Auditor, Shri G. Ramalingam was undergoing fourth stage of cancer treatment and can’t be expected to respond, hence, we are of the view that the assessee should not be penalized for the non- appearance of Shri G. Ramalingam who passed away on 24.11.2023.
Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeals back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the grounds of appeal in accordance to law as per sub- section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after hearing the & 1029/Chny/2025 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Muthukrishnan Jeyaprakash Narayanan assessee. The assessee is directed to be diligent and file all the relevant documents to support the grounds of appeal as well as file written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) without fail and the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.
In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.