AROUMOUGAM,PUDUCHERRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

Assessment Years: 2011-12 Aroumougam, Income Tax Officer, No.22 & 24, Ward-3, Logamuthu Mariamman Koil Street, Puducherry. Muthialpet, Puducherry-605 003. [PAN: AAAPY2726K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundar, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Gautham S.Mukundan, IRS सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : .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 / NFAC / S / 250 / 2023-24 / 1055969982(1) dated 12.09.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2011-12. 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 It has been noted that there is a delay of 483 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse was not aware of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) as all the notices were issued on an email ID camalame@aol.com. It was stated that the said email was furnished at the time of registering basic particulars in the income tax portal and was not in use thereafter. The assessee learnt of the order only when recovery proceedings were initiated against it. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset, Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without giving it adequate opportunity of being heard. It is the case of the assessee that the statutory notices were issued on email ID camalame@aol.com was furnished at the time of registering basic particulars in the income tax portal and was not in use thereafter. The Ld.Counsel pleaded that the addition made by the Ld.AO of Rs.10,23,700/- u/s 69A in respect of unexplained cash deposits made in the city bank account of the assessee, can be adequately explained if Page - 2 - of 4 one last opportunity is given. The Ld.counsel further argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has merely dismissed the appeal on account of non- compliance and has not adjudicated the case on its merits. It was accordingly pleaded that the matter be remitted back to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The Ld.Counsel personally assured that due compliances shall now be made. 4.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. It was stated that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and that no compliance was made before the Ld.AO as well. 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is an admitted fact by the assessee that no compliance could be made before the lower authorities. We have also noted that the lower authorities have not extensively analyzed the issue on its merits. Be that as it may be we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if assessee is given one last opportunity of being heard to present its case before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of lower authorities and direct the Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard. It shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with all the statutory notices issued and any non-compliance would be adversely viewed. The Ld.CIT(A) may consider calling for a remand report from the Ld.AO of Page - 3 - of 4 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.