CHADRASEKARAN,TIRUPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TIRUPUR

Chandrasekaran, Income Tax Officer, No.24, P.N.Road, 2nd Street, Tirupur, Ward-1(1), Tamil Nadu-604 602. Tiruppur. [PAN: AERPC1709H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.Bhupendran, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 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 / APL / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1075140419(1) dated 27.03.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), Addl/JCIT(A)-6, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2007-08. 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 At the outset Ld.Counsel for the assessee argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has violated his natural right of being heard by dismissing the appeal by applying simplicitor of non-condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Brief factual matrix of the case is that assessessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was passed on 31.03.2015 thereby the Ld.AO made adjustment of Rs.13,38,370/- on account of capital gains. In appeal the Ld.CIT(A) held that there has been a delay 1800 days in the filing of the appeal and for which he did not had any justifiable reason. Consequently, the Ld.First Appellate Authority proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that it had admittedly filed delayed appeal on 11.03.2020, however, the same was attributable to its pending litigation before the Hon’ble Madras High Court. The appellant assessee has submitted that in its own case WP No.37894 of 2015, order was passed by the Hon’ble Court on 10.12.2019 and which was received by the assessee on 12.02.2020. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that Hon’ble Court had given it the liberty to file its appeal within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order. Accordingly, in compliance thereof the assessee had filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on 11.03.2020. Thus, there was no case of delay in the filing of appeal in impugned matter at the end of appellant. In support of its contentions copies of the impugned court order has been placed on records. 3.0 Per contra the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. 4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that in this case the appellant assessee had Page - 2 - of 4 contested the issue of notice u/s 148 which was the basis for order u/s 143(3) dated 31.03.2015. The assessee had approached the Hon’ble High Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under article 226 which did not find favour and was dismissed. However, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the assessee to seek alternate remedy u/s 246 and for which the court had granted time of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the assessee had sufficient reasonable cause for the delay caused in the matter. In the interest of justice, we therefore direct the Ld.CIT(A) to readjudicate the matter afresh by passing a speaking order, after condoning the delay, and by giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be bounden to comply to all the statutory notices. Accordingly all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 18th , July-2025 at Chennai. (एबी टी. वर्की) (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (ABY T VARKEY) (AMITABH SHUKLA) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 18th , July-2025. KB/-