K. A. HABEEBULLA,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(4),, SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 476/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 April 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after finding reasonable cause. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to participate, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, running a pharmacy, failed to respond to notices from the AO and CIT(A) due to alleged lack of English knowledge. This resulted in ex-parte assessment and appellate orders. The assessee filed a condonation of delay petition, stating reasons for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's non-compliance due to lack of English knowledge justifies condoning the delay and setting aside ex-parte orders to provide a fresh opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

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, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 22.04.2025Pronounced: 28.04.2025

(�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vs Shri K.A. Habeebulla, The Income Tax Officer, Prop.: Super Pharmacy-B, Ward 1(4), D.No.208/2, Brindavan Road, Salem. Fairlands, Salem -636 004. PAN : AAJPH 7705C (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Senthil Kumar, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 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 25.09.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18.

2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 79 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons for delay has been filed. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, 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 assessment has been completed on best judgment basis u/s.144 of the Act on 22.11.2019. Further the CIT(A)’s order is also ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to the six notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.

4.

The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is an individual running a pharmacy in the name of Super Pharmacy-B at Salem. He further submitted that the assessee has failed to take note of hearing notices sent through e-mail due to lack of English knowledge, resulting in non-cooperation of assessee during the appellate proceedings. 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 violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was prayed the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

6.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Office of the First Appellate Authority had issued six hearing notices. It was the contention of the ld.AR that the assessee due to lack of English knowledge failed to take note of hearing notices sent from the office of the CIT(A). We note that the Assessing Officer has also passed exparte order 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 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 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 28th April, 2025 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →