NARAYANASWAMY RAMACHANDRAN,HOSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, HOSUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 345/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals without addressing the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and restored the appeals back to the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide them on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for AY 2013-14, which dismissed the appeals ex-parte without considering the merits due to non-response. There was a minor delay of three days in filing the appeals, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals ex-parte without deciding on merits when the assessee had explained the delay in filing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA

For Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Hearing: 22.04.2025Pronounced: 26.05.2025

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, both dated 27.11.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2013-14 against the & 346/Chny/2025 (AY 2013-14) Narayanaswamy Ramachandran :: 2 ::

1.

quantum assessment as well as penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act”).

2.

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of three (3) days in filing of the appeals. The assessee has explained the cause for the delay and therefore, we excuse the delay in filing of appeals for three (3) days and proceed to hear the appeals on merits.

3.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order qua assessee.

In this regard, it is noted the Ld.CIT(A) has issued three (3) notices and finding no response from the assessee, has dismissed the appeals without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.

We don’t countenance such action of the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeals back to his file with a direction to decide the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits as contemplated under sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act. The Ld.AR has undertaken to file written submissions/relevant documents to substantiate the grounds of appeals. The Ld.CIT(A) to pass speaking order in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.

4. Since the appellate order challenging the quantum assessment has been set aside back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A), therefore, the penalty appeal [ITA No.346/Chny/2025] is also set aside back to the file of the & 346/Chny/2025 (AY 2013-14) Narayanaswamy Ramachandran Ld.CIT(A) to be decided after passing the order in the appeal related to the quantum assessment after hearing the assessee.

5.

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 26th day of May, 2025, in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →