Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2012-13 arose from ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). In some appeals, there was a significant delay in filing, which the CIT(A) did not condone. The assessee cited health issues due to an accident and hospitalization as reasons for the delay and non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeals without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal decided to remit the matters back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee, subject to costs.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals ex-parte without condoning the delay and without adjudicating on merits, and if the assessee's explanation for the delay and non-compliance was acceptable.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M :
Aforesaid appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years (AYs) 2008-09, 2009-10, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2012-12 arise out of the orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 27.02.2025.
All the five appeals are arising out of ex-parte orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) and therefore decided by common order. to 1186/Chny/2025 & Kamaraj. R :- 2 -:
& 1184/Chny/2025: 3. In these appeals, there was a delay of 1123 days in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeals in limine, as the assessee had cited health issues without furnishing any supporting documents.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has submitted that assessee had met with an accident during the relevant period and was hospitalized, and therefore was out of touch with the proceedings. The Ld A.R further submitted that the assessee was not aware of the assessment orders as the Income Tax Practitioner who created and operated the email ID used for service of notice, did not inform developments in the tax proceedings and he came to know about the assessment order only upon receiving a call from the Income Tax Department regarding the outstanding demand. The Ld. A.R, therefore, prayed that the delay be condoned and the Ld. CIT(A) be directed to admit the appeals and decide the issues on merits in the interest of justice.
On the other hand, the Learned Departmental Representative (D.R) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. to 1186/Chny/2025 & Kamaraj. R :- 3 -:
We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeals without admitting them, as assessee has not submitted documentary evidence in support of health reason given in Form 35.
However, the Ld. CIT(A), while not admitting the appeals has also dismissed the appeals observing that, even on merits, the assessee had not furnished any supporting documents to substantiate the nature and purpose of the investments shown in the balance sheet. Before us, the assessee has submitted documentary evidence explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the submissions, we are of the view that the matters should be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeals on merits, denovo in accordance with law subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/-, each. The same shall be paid by the assessee to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by the A.O and the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) shall pass a reasoned orders after to 1186/Chny/2025 & Kamaraj. R :- 4 -: providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to co-operate with the proceedings and appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail. In view of the above, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only.
, 1186 & 1193/Chny/2025:
At the outset, the Ld. A.R of the assessee has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A), in all three appeals had passed orders ex-parte without adjudicating the issues on merits therefore, one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to substantiate his cases before the Ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), relied on the orders of lower authorities and submitted that the orders were passed ex-parte as the assessee has been non compliance to the notices issued.
We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals on account of non- to 1186/Chny/2025 & Kamaraj. R :- 5 -: compliance of the assessee, without adjudicating the issues on merits. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by the A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matters back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) shall pass a reasoned order after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to co-operate with the proceedings and appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail. In view of the above, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only.
In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 30th day of June, 2025 at Chennai.