ELUMALAI,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KANCHIPURAM

These appeals as well as Stay Petitions preferred by the assessee are against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Chennai/Delhi, dated 27.06.2024 & 28.05.2025 for the Assessment Year & 1647/Chny/2025 SP Nos.56 & 57/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Mr. Elumalai :: 2 ::

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) in both quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal are ex parte orders and that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals on the ground that the assessee didn’t file any response to his four (4) notices issued on various dates. In this regard, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee didn’t receive any notices due to technical glitches in the internet. According to the assessee, he is a small time farmer with no knowledge about Income Tax proceedings as well as e- proceedings. According to the assessee, he had entrusted the case to native Income Tax Practitioner (ITP) whom assessee trusted to perform his duty, but only when he received the demand notice that he came to know that the appeal has been dismissed and immediately thereafter handed over the relevant papers to Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA on 02.06.2025 who immediately preferred an appeal on 05.06.2025 with a delay of ‘278’ days. The assessee has filed an affidavit along with the condonation application. After perusal of the same, we find that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay and therefore, we condone the delay of ‘278’ days in filing of the quantum appeal [ 1647/Chny/2025 SP Nos.56 & 57/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Mr. Elumalai its merits and also note that the penalty appeal has been filed well within the time.

As noted supra, the impugned orders in respect of quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal are noted to be ex parte orders on the ground that the assessee didn’t file any response to his notices. In this regard, as noted supra, the assessee didn’t receive any notices and so, he was in the dark about the appellate proceedings which resulted in passing of the impugned orders. Therefore, we find that there is violation of natural justice and consequently, the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is set aside. Having done so, we also note that the assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO which led the AO to pass best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘). Therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), we restore the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The assessee is directed to be diligent and file relevant documents and written submissions in support of its claim. The AO is directed to frame de novo assessment after hearing the assessee in accordance to law.

Since the quantum assessment has been set aside back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment, the penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act & 1647/Chny/2025 SP Nos.56 & 57/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Mr. Elumalai also is set aside and restored back to the file of the AO for necessary action in accordance to law after the assessment has been framed.

Since we have restored the quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal back to the file of the AO, Stay Petitions filed by the assessee are infructuous and so, dismissed.

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petitions filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous.