KARUPPIAH RAMAN,MADURAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(7),, MADURAI
आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘डी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ के, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी अिमताभ शुला, लेखा सदèय के सम¢
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND
SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 3003/CHNY/2024
िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year:2017-18
Shri Karuppiah Raman,
No.9, Sembarathi Street,
Arunachalam Nagar,
P & T Nagar,
Madurai – 625 017. PAN: AEDPR 0851D
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Non-Corporate Ward 1(7),
Madurai
(अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant)
(ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent)
अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate
ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri S. Easwar, JCIT
सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.01.2025
घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025
आदेश /O R D E R
PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against
CIT(A)/NFAC’s order dated 20.09.2024, passed under section 250
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. 2. At the very outset, we notice that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed for non-prosecuting the case. In response to three hearing notices 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.
The ld.AR submitted that the hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority was never received by the assessee as the same was sent through e-mail, which was not taken note by the assessee. It was prayed that in the interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to represent his case.
The ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Office of the First Appellate Authority had issued three 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 from the office of the First Appellate Authority was never received by the assessee, as the same was sent through e-mail, which was not taken note by the assessee. 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 and accordingly the issues raised in this appeal is restored to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st January, 2025 at Chennai. (अिमताभ शुला)
(AMITABH SHUKLA)
लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(जॉज[ जॉज[ के)
(GEORGE GEORGE K)
उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT
चेÛनई/Chennai,
Ǒदनांक/Dated, the 21st January, 2025
RSR
आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to:
अपीलाथȸ/Appellant
Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Chennai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF.