VASUDEVAN VINOTHKUMAR,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VELLORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 846/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 June 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 420-day delay, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's medical condition. It set aside the ex-parte orders and remanded the assessment back to the AO for a de novo assessment after hearing the assessee, based on principles of justice and a Supreme Court decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the Ld.CIT(A)'s order for AY 2017-18 with a 420-day delay, citing hospitalization for kidney failures and transplantation. Both the Ld.CIT(A) and the AO had passed ex-parte orders as the assessee claimed notices went to their spam folder.

What were the issues?

Whether there was sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal, and whether ex-parte assessment and appellate orders should be set aside for a fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA

Hearing: 03.06.2025Pronounced: 18.06.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

1.

1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)‘), Delhi, dated 22.11.2023 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY‘) 2017-18.

2.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the instant appeal has been filed belatedly with a delay of ‘420’ days.

1.

And the assessee has filed condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the cause for delay. On perusal of the affidavit as well as condonation application reveals that assessee has been hospitalized in Bharathirajaa Hospital & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd.for a long time due to kidney failures which resulted in transplantation of both kidneys within a short span of time and therefore, he was unable to look into the litigations/appeal. The assessee has filed relevant/supporting medical documents to show that he had kidney failures and was on regular dialysis, hence assessee prays for condonation of delay.

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 medical records, we are convinced that assessee suffered with kidney failures and has been hospitalized for a very long period which caused the delay in filing of appeal. Therefore, we are of the view that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay and therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay of ‘420’ days. However, it was brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) as well as the AO have passed ex parte orders [AO passed best judgment assessment] since assessee didn’t respond to their notices.

According to the assessee, the notices couldn’t be accessed by the assessee since it was going to the ‘spam’ e-mail account of the assessee, because of which, assessee was not aware of the notices. Be that as it may, we note that the impugned order as well as assessment order are ex parte orders. Therefore, for the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A); and taking note of 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 with a direction to de novo assess the income of the assessee.

5.

The Ld.AR undertakes to be diligent and appear before the AO and duly answer his queries with support of relevant documents and also has furnished his contact details which are noted as under:

e-mail Id: sridharlaw@gmail.com And the AO is directed to pass fresh assessment order in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 18th day of June, 2025, in Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →