SHANMUGAM SENTHILKUMAR,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-I, DHARMAPURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1117/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 June 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 12-day delay, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeals to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present all relevant evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals with a delay of 12 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine without admitting them. The assessee provided an affidavit explaining the delay and assured appearance before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the delay of 12 days in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was a sufficient cause to be condoned, and if so, whether the appeals should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(4)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & HON’BLE SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA

Hearing: 18.06.2025Pronounced: 30.06.2025

These two appeals by the assessee is arising out of the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi both order dated 17.03.2025.

2.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We found that there was delay of 12 days in filing appeals. Hence, the ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the appeals and dismissed in limine as per provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 249 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) also noted that the assessee has not made any application in this behalf so that the CIT(A) may for any good and sufficient reasons exempt him from the operation of the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 249 of the Act.

3.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee before us has shown the affidavit which was filed before the CIT(A) on 09.11.2021 vide acknowledgement No. 803241711091121. He further, has given an assurance to appear before the ld. CIT(A) without fail and prayed for set siding the appeal back to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

4.

Per contra, the ld.DR has not disputed the aforesaid affidavit filed before the ld.CIT(A) by the assessee.

5.

We have seen the reasons for 12 days delay in filing appeals as sufficient cause, hence we condone the delay. Further, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice assessee should be given one more opportunity before ld.CIT(A) to file all relevant evidences/documents to prosecute the captioned cases. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid factual position and for the substantial justice, we deem it fit to set aside both the appeals to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of appeals. The ld.CIT(A) who shall proceed for Page - 2 - of 3 denovo adjudication of appeals after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which ld.CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the appellate proceedings as per law.

6.

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th , day of June, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (अमिताभ शुक्ला) ( िनु कुिार गिरर) ( Amitabh Shukla ) ( Manu Kumar Giri) लेखा सदस्य / Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/ Judicial Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 30th , June-2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF

Page - 3 - of 3

More judgments on Section 249(4)(b)

All 347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(4)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →