VEDARATHINAM AMUTHA,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KRISHNAGIRI, KRISHNAGIRI

Vedarathinam Amutha, Income Tax Officer, New No.4 (Old No.3/4), Ward-1, Ramakrishnapuram 1st Street, Krishnagiri TK & Dist. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. [PAN: AUOPA8952F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanaban, CA & Mr.R.S.Lakshmi Narayanan, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, 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 / 1064409479(1) dated 27.04.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2016-17. Through the aforesaid appeal the assessee has challenged order u/s 250 dated 27.04.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.

2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 190 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is not familiar with electronic working and that the appellate order was served on the e-mail id of previous tax consultant who did not timely informed. Assessee came to know of the order when the recovery proceedings were initiated. 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. 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. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order and that the appeal was dismissed for being filed late without any justified grounds. It was pleaded that the assesse had committed delay and for which it had justified grounds. It was stated that delay was attributable to prolonged ill-health of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel submitted the matter may be restored to Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication on its merits and that it shall make full compliance to the notices of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.Counsel has advanced Page - 2 - of 4 his personal assurance to this effect. In support of its contentions, the Ld. Counsel filed a detailed paperbook. The Ld. DR on the other hand 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. 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 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. CIT(A) for readjudication after giving opportunities of being heard to the assesse and to pass a speaking order. We also direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of appeal, before him, in this case. He will be at liberty to call for any remand report from the Ld. AO if warranted by the facts of the case. The assesse shall be bound to comply to all the notices and details called by the Ld. CIT(A). Any non-compliance from the assesse side shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and direct him to readjudicate the matter de novo. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes.