GANDAVARAPU SATHYANARAYANA REDDY,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD 8(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI
Page - 1 - of 4
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,’डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
श्री जॉजज जॉजज के, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3014/Chny/2024
निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18
Gandavarapu
Sathyanarayana
Reddy,
Flat No.B-1, Plot No.258, Rajiv
Nagar, Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Extn, Pallikuppam,
Ayyapakkam,
Tamil Nadu-600 077. [PAN: AQMPR4401J]
Vs.
Income Tax Officer,
Non-Corporate Ward-8(2),
Chennai.
(अपीलधर्थी/Appellant)
(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)
अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by :
Shri K.Viswapadmanathan, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by :
Shri Eswaran, JCIT
सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of Hearing
:
21.01.2025
घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
24.01.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order
No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067371199(1) dated 06.08.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National
Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2017-18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250
dated 06.08.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.
Page - 2 - of 4
0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 26 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is has been suffering from multiple health issues for a long time and hence could not devote requisite time to his tax proceedings leading to the ex-parte orders in its case. He came to know about the impugned order when the Ld. AO pursued recovery proceedings. 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 very outset, we notice that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed for non-prosecuting the case. In response to notices of hearing issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority, the assessee has not furnished his submissions or any documentary evidences. Consequently the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in-limine for non- prosecution without adjudicating the issue on merits. 4.0 The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority could not be complied on account of adverse health issues. It was prayed that in the Page - 3 - of 4
interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one last opportunity to represent his case.
5.0
The ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
6.0
We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Office of the First Appellate Authority had issued hearing notices and since there was no response from the assessee to the notices issued, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. It is the claim of the ld.AR that the notices issued could not be complied by the assessee, on account of adverse health issues. We have also noted that the assessee had not complied with the notices issued by the Ld. AO compelling him to pass ex- parte orders u/s. 144. Be that as it may be, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent his case before the assessing office. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case.
We have also noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter.
Accordingly the issues raised in this appeal is restored to the files of the Ld.
AO for assessment de novo after giving necessary opportunity of being
Page - 4 - of 4
heard. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
7.0
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 24th , January-2025 at Chennai. (जॉजज जॉजज के)
(GEORGE GEORGE K)
उपधध्यक्ष / Vice President
(श्री अनितधभ शुक्लध)
(AMITABH SHUKLA)
लेखध सदस्य /Accountant Member
चेन्नई/Chennai, नदिधंक/Dated: 24th , January-2025. KB/-
आदेश की प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/Copy to:
1. अपीलधर्थी/Appellant
2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent
3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Chennai.
4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनिनर्/DR
5. गधर्ा फधईल/GF