RAJASEKAR KOTHANDAPANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, BUSINESS WARD 4, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’
यायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

ी एबी टी. वक
, ाियक सद एवं
एवं
एवं
एवं

ी मनोज कुमार अवाल, लेखा सद के सम

BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIMANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 2837/Chny/2024
िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year: 2007-08

RajasekarKothandapani,
45 Micheal Garden,
9th Cross Street,
Ramapuram, Chennai – 600 089. v.
Income Tax Officer,
Business Ward –IV(4),
Chennai.
[PAN: AMHPK-2691-Q]

(अपीलाथ/Appellant)

(यथ/Respondent)

अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by :
Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
यथ क ओर से /Respondent by :
Smt. D. Babitha, JCIT
सुनवाईकतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
22.01.2025
घोषणाकतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
26.02.2025

आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

This appeal preferred by the assessee trust against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax,Addl/JCIT(A)-10, Delhi, dated
20.09.2024 for assessment year (in short “AY") 2007-08. 2. At the outset the Ld.AR of the assessee pointed out that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex-parte order. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessment order in this case was passed on 31.12.2009 u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short

“the Act”) and thereafte later, the appeal got m the NFAC had issued a notices was during the aspect, drew our atte submitted that the othe on 06.09.2024 i.e. with Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the 3. According to the seen that the assessee on 25.01.2010 against
Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC issued
14.09.2020 followed b were in the midst of t notices were issued w assessee was out of sta which prompted the Ld
Therefore, he prayed th
Ld.CIT(A) and an oppor
4. Per contra, the Ld innings to the assessee
ITA N
Raj
:: 2 ::

er, assessee filed an appeal in Janu migrated to NFAC by order dated 2
altogether five (5) notices out of w e Covid-19 Pandemic period and t ention to the impugned order at er two notices were issued on 22.08
hin a gap of 15 days and finding no e appeal.
Ld.AR from the events stated abo has promptly filed the appeal before t the assessment order 31.12.200
d notice of hearing only after y notices on 23.12.2020 and 26. the Covid-19 Pandemic; and there within a gap of 15 days (supra); ation, he couldn’t respond to the tw
.CIT(A) to pass the ex-parte order hat the matter may be restored to tunity be granted to the assessee.
d.DR does not want us to give asse

Nos.2837/Chny/2024
[AY 2007-08]
asekarKothandapani uary, 2010 and 25.09.2020 and which three (3) o buttress this t Page 2 and 8.2024 followed o response, the ove it could be e the Ld.CIT(A)
09. However, a decade on 02.2021 which eafter the final and since the wo (2) notices, r qua assessee.
o the file of the essee one more

oth the parties and perused the rec der for AY 2007-08 was passed u/s pursuant to it, the assessee filed a 0] before the Ld.CIT(A), which got m d the first notice of hearing was issu reafter two notices during the Covi notices within a gap of 15 days, w tation. Therefore, assessee could nd reasonable and therefore, for the inclined to set aside the impugne he appeal back to his file with a dire fter hearing the assessee in accord e Act. The assessee is also directe ents/written submissions before the ed to decide the grounds of appe f the Act.
peal filed by the assessee is allowe on the 26th day of February, 2025, i
ल)
ARWAL)
MEMBER (एबीटी.
(ABY T. VA
याियकसदय/JUDI

Nos.2837/Chny/2024
[AY 2007-08]
asekarKothandapani cords. We note s. 143(3) of the ppeal within 25
migrated to the ued to assessee id-19 Pandemic which time the not respond to e ends of justice ed order of the ection to decide dance with sub- d to be diligent e Ld.CIT(A) and eal as per sub- d for statistical n Chennai.
/-
वक
)
ARKEY)
CIAL MEMBER

चेई/Chennai,
दनांक/Dated: 26th Februar
JPV, Sr.PS
आदेशक ितिलिपअेिषत/Copy

ITA N
Raj
:: 4 ::

ry, 2025. to:
nai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore.

Nos.2837/Chny/2024
[AY 2007-08]
asekarKothandapani