TVISHA CAPITAL INVESTMENTS CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 3(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI
आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘डी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘D’ 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 Nos.: 1586, 1587, 1588, 1589 &
1590/CHNY/2025
िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19
Tvisha Capital Investments
Consultancy Private Limited,
No.21/11, 2nd Floor,
First Main Road,
CIT Colony, Mylapore,
Mylapore H.O.,
Chennai – 600 004. PAN: AACCT 9829P
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Corporate Ward – 3(1),
Chennai.
(अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant)
(ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent)
अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri R.S. Lakshmi Narayana,
Advocate
ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT
सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16.07.2025
घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 21.07.2025
आदेश/ O R D E R
PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:
These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the five different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 10.03.2025/11.03.2025
ITA Nos.1586 to 1590/Chny/2025
:- 2 -:
passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2017-18 &
2018-19. 2. At the very outset, we notice that the orders of First Appellate
Authority (FAA) is ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to the three hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.
We also notice that there is a delay in filing the appeals before the FAA and the assessee has not submitted the reasons for delay. The FAA has noted that though the assessee in Form 35 has stated that the reasons for condonation of delay and supporting documentary evidence will be furnished during the course of hearing, no application has been filed for condonation of delay and therefore, the appeals are not only delayed but defective.
The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a company and it has become defunct and struck off from the rolls of