NANDA KUMAR PARTHASARATHY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-15(1), CHENNAI

Assessment Years: 2021-22 Nana Kumar Parthasarathy, Income Tax Officer, No.315, Ramaniyam Katima, Non-Corp Ward-15(1), No.148, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Chennai. Thuraipakkam, Chennai-600 097. [PAN: CDJPP3991B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri Y.Sridhar,F.C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.06.2025 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 / 2025-26 / 1075484537(1) dated 04.04.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), for the assessment year 2021-22. 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 the Ld. Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order u/s 143(1) wherein the Ld.AO had made a disallowance on account of foreign tax credit of Rs.6,38,670/- as well as non-credit of few TDS payments, without condoning delay petition. It was submitted that the Ld. First Appellate Authority dismissed its appeal without condoning the delay in filing of appeal before him. It was pleaded that the non-compliance of the assesse was attributable to serious health issues of its Chartered accountant who was suffering from acute pulmonary infection causing the impugned delay of about 100 days. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse pleaded for setting aside the case to Ld.CIT(A) and personally assured that full compliance would now be made to the statutory notices of the Ld. CIT(A). 3.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities and submitted that the assessee is a willful defaulter. 4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is an admitted fact from the records that the assessee has filed delayed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). We find sufficient force in the pleadings of the assesse as to why it could not file its appeal in time before the Ld.CIT(A).The Ld. Counsel for the assesse has now given personal assurance of compliance. We are conscious that no litigant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. We have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of delayed filing by the assesse the Ld. CIT(A) has not touched upon merits of the case. Page - 2 - of 3 5.0 We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the case is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after giving opportunities of being heard to the assesse and to pass a speaking order. We also direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of appeal before him and readjudicate in accordance with law. The assesse shall be bound to comply to all the notices and details called by the Ld. CIT(A). Any non-compliance from the assesse side shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 19th , June-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार धिरर) (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (AMITABH SHUKLA) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 19th , 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