KANNAN MATHUMITHA,MADURAI vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), MADURAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3264/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 February 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and the reason for delay, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for denovo hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18. There was a delay of 20 days in filing the appeal. The AO had made additions under section 143(3) and section 69A, which were upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal and whether to grant a denovo hearing before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 24.02.2025Pronounced: 24.02.2025

(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Kannan Mathumitha Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1, Palamedu Main Road, Ward 2(4) Kajendra Automobiles, Madurai. Madurai 625 018. [PAN: BZQPM 2544H] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : None ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. M. Aswathy, JCIT. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 25.09.2024 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The registry has noted delay of 20 days in filing the appeal. Considering the period of delay and reason of illness as statedby the doctor of Kala Hospital, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the AO paased assessment order u/s 143(3) making various additions including an addition of Rs.13,30,289/- u/s 69A the Act which has been upheld by the ld.CIT(A). Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

None for the assessee before us. As per grounds of appeal, assessee stated before us that assessee is not well versed with handling the email which caused non appearance before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.DR on the other hand relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and argued for the dismissal of the appeal filed by the assessee.

5.

The ld.DR submitted that the assessee is habitual defaulter hence no lenient view will be taken.

6.

Though we concur with the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice and grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We also find that assessee has not represented before the ld.CIT(A) despite notices. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for denovo appeal hearing on legal issues as well as on merits.The Ld.CIT(A) shall proceed for denovo appeal hearing after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case with all evidence, confirmations and documents, if any, forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed disposal of appeal on merits as per law. Since assessee has filed this appeal before us hence we expect that the assessee will prosecute her appeal with due diligence.

7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th day of February, 2025 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →