ANANTHAKRISHNAN RADHAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-3(1), CHENNAI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ यायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ी एबी टी. वक
, ाियक सद एवं
एवं
एवं
एवं
ी अिमताभ शुा, लेखा सद के सम
BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.844 & 845/Chny/2025
िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: 2015-16
Ananthakrishnan Radhakrishnan,
57, New No.2, K.B.Dasan Road,
Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. v.
The Income Tax Officer,
Ward-3(1),
Chennai.
[PAN: ADIPR 0030 J]
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)
(यथ/Respondent)
अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by :
Ms.A. Nikita, Advocate
यथ क ओर से /Respondent by :
Mr.Gautham S. Mukundan,
IRS
सुनवाईकतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
03.06.2025
घोषणाकतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
18.06.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 20.06.2024 (quantum appeal) & order dated 06.01.2025 (penalty appeal) for the Assessment
Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2015-16. ITA Nos.844 & 845/Chny/2025 (AY 2015-16)
Ananthakrishnan Radhakrishnan
:: 2 ::
At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex parte orders in both the quantum appeal as well as the penalty appeal. According to the Ld.AR, assessee’s wife (Smt. K. Radha Kumari) was seriously ill and therefore, the assessee was looking after her in the hospital and later she succumbed to the illness and died on 10.04.2024. According to the Ld.AR, notices were issued by the Ld.CIT(A) on 12.04.2024 i.e. after two days of demise of his wife and therefore, he was not able to respond to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore, prayed for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A). 3. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee. 4. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in both quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal are ex parte orders because assessee didn’t participate in the appellate proceedings despite three (3) notices were issued by the First Appellate Authority. In this regard, we note that one of the notices was issued on 12.04.2024. It has been brought to our notice that assessee’s wife Smt. Radha Kumari was suffering from chronic illness and she passed away on 10.04.2024 [Death Certificate enclosed]. Therefore, assessee was not in a position to reply to the notices issued by ITA Nos.844 & 845/Chny/2025 (AY 2015-16) Ananthakrishnan Radhakrishnan :: 3 ::
the Ld.CIT(A). Be that as it may, the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) are ex parte orders and therefore, there is violation of natural justice and therefore, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeals back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to pass orders in accordance with sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) after hearing the assessee in accordance to law. The assessee is directed to be diligent and file all the relevant documents to support the grounds of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).
5. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 18th day of June, 2025, in Chennai. (अिमताभ शुा)
(AMITABH SHUKLA)
लेखा सदय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबी टी. वक
)
(ABY T. VARKEY)
याियक सदय/JUDICIAL MEMBER
चे ई/Chennai,
!दनांक/Dated: 18th June, 2025. TLN
आदेश क ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ /Appellant
2. थ /Respondent
3. आयकरआयु/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore.
4. िवभागीयितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF