Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the tribunal with a delay of 824 days, stating they were not conversant with electronic working and only became aware of the order upon initiation of recovery proceedings. The PCIT, Chennai had passed an ex-parte order directing revision of assessment and penalty proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee's explanation and the lack of serious objection from the Revenue. The Tribunal also found that the PCIT had not dealt with the merits of the case.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, and whether the ex-parte order passed by PCIT was justified without considering the merits of the case.
Sections Cited
271AAC, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Years: 2021-22 Shanmugam Sakthivel, The Asst. Commissioner of Income No.1/232, Kumaran Colony, Tax, Anna Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Thirumurugan Poondi Post, Chennai Tirupur, Tamil Nadu- 641 652 [PAN: FWSPS0073N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr. Anandd Babunath, CA प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl. CIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 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/REV/F/REV5/2023-24/1061222170(1) dated 20.02.2024, for the assessment years 2021-22 of PCIT, Chennai. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 824 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is not conversant with electronic working of the tax authorities. It was also submitted that the assessee came to know of Page - 1 - of 4 the order only upon initiation of recovery proceedings. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. 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. The Ld. DR however argued that cost be imposed upon the assessee for wasting the precious time of the judicial authorities. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld. PCIT, Chennai has passed an ex-parte order thereby directing the Ld. AO to revise and modify the assessment order dated 17.03.2022 so as to ensure that penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC was initiated qua addition of Rs.26,25,150/- made u/s 69A. It was pleaded that admittedly the compliance of the assessee before the lower authorities i.e Ld. PCIT, Chennai was inadequate. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse pleaded for setting aside the case to Ld. PCIT, Chennai and assured that full compliance would now be made to the statutory notices of the Ld. PCIT.
Page - 2 - of 4 4.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is trite law that no litigant benefits by non- prosecution of its case. We find sufficient force in the pleadings of the assesse as to why it could not prosecute its appeal before Ld. PCIT, Chennai We have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of non-compliance by the assesse the Ld. PCIT, Chennai, has not touched upon merits of the case. 5.0 We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the case is set aside to the file of the Ld. PCIT, Chennai for readjudication after giving opportunities of being heard to the assesse and to pass a speaking order. The assesse shall be bound to comply to all the notices and details called by the Ld. PCIT, Chennai Any non-compliance from the assesse side shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. PCIT, Chennai and direct him to readjudicate the matter de novo. We have also found sufficient force in the argument of the Ld. DR regarding wastage of time of judicial authorities by the non- compliance of the assessee. Consequently, this order is subject to payment of Rs.5000/- by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority of Hon’ble Madras High Court within 30 days of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes.