GANDAVARAPU SATHYANARAYANA REDDY,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD 8(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Year: 2017-18 Gandavarapu Sathyanarayana Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward-8(2), Flat No.B-1, Plot No.258, Rajiv Chennai. Nagar, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Extn, Pallikuppam, Ayyapakkam, Tamil Nadu-600 077. [PAN: AQMPR4401J] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri K.Viswapadmanathan, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Eswaran, JCIT : 21.01.2025 सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of Hearing : 24.01.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date of Pronouncement 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 - 1 - of 4 2.0 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 - 2 - 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.