C RAVI,NAMAKKAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, NAMAKKAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 348/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2011-12Bench: the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication.4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 3-day delay and, noting the assessee's non-participation before lower authorities, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It remitted the matter back to the AO for a de-novo assessment with a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, guided by the *Tin Box Company vs CIT* precedent. A cost of Rs. 5,000 was also imposed.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A), which upheld an addition made by the AO under Section 143(3) r.w. Section 147. The CIT(A)'s order resulted from the assessee's failure to respond to multiple notices and non-participation in proceedings before both authorities. The appeal to the Tribunal involved a 3-day delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) should be set aside and the matter remanded to the AO to provide a fresh opportunity for the assessee to present their case, despite repeated non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

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, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE

Hearing: 22.04.2025Pronounced: 05.05.2025

(�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vs Shri C. Ravi, The ACIT, New No.4/24, N. Goundampalayam, Circle -1, Thinadamangalam Post, Namakkal Namakkal – 637 001. PAN : ASUPR 1888H (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCA ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 05.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER S R RAGHUNATHA, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 03.12.2024 for the assessment year 2011-12.

2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 3 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which the Ld.AR explained the reasons for delay. After hearing both the parties and considering the small delay of 3 days, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication.

3.

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 eight notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.

4.

The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is an individual running a business in the name and style of M/s. Sri Ravi Agencies and a trader of maize and jowar. He further submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-furnishing of details by passing an ex- parte order qua assessee. It was prayed in the interest of justice and equity, the issue may be restored to the files of the AO as a last opportunity for proper representation of his case.

5.

The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the AO and the CIT(A) and there is no

6.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Office of the First Appellate Authority had issued eight hearing notices. However, the assessee had not appeared before the CIT(A) or furnished the details. We note that the Assessing Officer has also passed order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by considering the information available with the department and made an addition and the same has been upheld by the ld.CIT(A) - NFAC due to non-participation of the assessee in the first appellate proceedings. Since the assessee has failed to participate and furnish the details both before the AO as well as the appellate proceedings, we levy the cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras and produce proof of payment of cost to the Registry within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) and direct AO to denovo frame the order in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 5th May, 2025 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →