CHANDRAN SARAVANAN,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(8), SALEM

PDF · subscribers

ITA 661/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 June 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the assessee had sufficient reason for the belated filing. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without going into the merits and is bound to decide the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 520 days due to health issues (liver cirrhosis) and unfamiliarity with the e-portal. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-compliance without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on the merits, and whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to sufficient cause.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

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.

Southern Steel Industries v. AAC (CT)
101 STC 273 · 1996 · HC
25 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 03.06.2025Pronounced: 03.06.2025

आदेश /O R D E R

PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 26.07.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.

2. There is a delay of 520 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed condonation petition along with affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated in the affidavit for belated filing is, on account of poor health of the assessee who was suffering from liver cirrhosis. Due to his health condition, the assessee missed the First Appellate proceedings and the First Appellate order. The assessee has also filed Medical Certificate issued by the Doctor. Moreover, it was stated that the assessee was not very conversant with the electronic regime of the income tax proceedings resulting in delay. Later, on verifying the e- portal, the Chartered Accountant noticed the order passed by the First Appellate Authority and immediately steps were taken by the assessee to file the appeal before the Tribunal, which has resulted in delay of 520 days. On perusal of the aforesaid reason stated, we are of the view that the assessee cannot be faulted for non-filing the appeal on time. There is sufficient reason and no latches can be attributed to the assessee for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.

At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(A)’s order is ex- parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to the six notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. We also

The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee could not respond to the notices or appear before CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings due to his health condition. The Ld.AR further submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance and not on merits. It was prayed, in the interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case before the CIT(A).

The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the CIT(A) and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. However, she could not controvert the fact that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We noted that the CIT(A)-NFAC has simpliciter dismissed the appeal for non-compliance and not adjudicated or decided merits of the case. We find that appellate authority has no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default of non-compliance without going into merits. The CIT(A) is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of assessee. This view of ours is supported by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Southern Steel Industries vs. AAC (CT), reported in [1996] 101 STC 273 (Mad). In term of the above, the order of CIT(A)-NFAC is set aside and matter remanded back to his file for fresh adjudication on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd June, 2025 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →