KANDASAMY MANICKAM,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

Years: 2017-18 Kandasamy Manickam Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, No.2-146, Kumara Gounder Street, Circle-1(1), Nethimedu, Salem. Salem, Tamil Nadu-636 002. [PAN: AFKPM8374C] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.G.Tarun, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl.CIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025 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/250/2023-24/1059646647(1) dated 12.01.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assessee has challenged order u/s 250 dated 12.01.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.

Page - 1 - of 4 :- 2 -:

2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 250 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is an illiterate persons and was totally was dependent upon his Chartered Accountant to handle his tax matters in electronic regime. It was submitted the the delay was neither intentional 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 of the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed its appeal by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him. It was accordingly requested that the matter be remanded to Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merits by condoning the delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee made a personal assurance that full compliance will now be made to all the statutory notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. DR argued that the assessee is habitual defaulter qua compliance to statutory notices and that some costs be imposed before remanding the matter.

Page - 2 - of 4 :- 3 -:

4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted from para 8 of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee had requested for condonation of delay of 118 days on account of mental sickness. The same was not sympathetically viewed by the Ld.CIT(A) who chose to dismiss the appeal on account of delay. We have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of delay the Ld.CIT(A) has not given any finding on the merit of the case. Accordingly, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if a final opportunity is given to the assessee by the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct him to readjudicate the appeal by condoning the delay. The Ld.CIT(A) shall given due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and any non- compliance on the part of the assessee shall be adversely viewed. We however also find favour in the arguments of the Ld. DR qua wasting the precious time of the courts. Consequently, the impugned remand back to the Ld.CIT(A) is subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days of the receipt of this order. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.