RAMESH BALUSWAMY,KANCHIPURAM vs. DCIT, NCC-17(1), CHENNAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that no litigant benefits from non-prosecution and found merit in the assessee's explanation for delayed compliance due to personal preoccupations. The CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the merits of the case.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) which confirmed the assessment order. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with statutory notices.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adequately considering the assessee's reasons for non-compliance and without addressing the merits of the case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & HON’BLE SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Ramesh Baluswamy, The Deputy Commissioner of No.5/23 Seven Wells Street, Income Tax, St.Thomas Mount, Non-Corporate Circle-17(1), St. Thomas Mount H.O. Chennai. Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai-600 016. [PAN: AEPPR8859E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Ms.S.Janani, Advocate for Ms.Hema Murali Krishnan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Smt.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 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 / NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1069322192(1) dated 01.10.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2022-23 . 2.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 12.05.2023. The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by the Ld. First Appellate Authority. It was submitted that only two notices were issued over a period of less than a month and appeal was dismissed for non-compliance.
3.0 The Ld. DR has relied upon the order of lower authorities.
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. The appellant assessee submitted before us that compliance could not be made because of preoccupation with some personal works. We find sufficient force in the pleadings of the assesse as to why it could not file its appeal in time. We have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of delayed filing by the assesse the Ld. CIT(A) has not adequately touched upon merits of the case. Accordingly, the order of lower authorities is set aside and the Ld.CIT(A) is directed to readjudicate the appeal after giving due opportunity of being heard and by passing a speaking order. All the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Page - 2 - of 3
Order pronounced on 9th , April-2025 at Chennai.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
