RAJENDIRAN HARIKRISHNAN,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VILLUPURAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3475/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 February 2026AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to system glitches preventing the assessee from being aware of the proceedings. The Tribunal condoned the delay subject to the assessee paying a cost and also set aside the ex parte order, restoring the appeal to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against an ex parte order by the Ld.CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee contended that the order was passed without considering the merits and that there was a violation of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) without going into the merits of the case is sustainable? Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 28.01.2026Pronounced: 11.02.2026

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the action of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 21.05.2025 in respect of Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2018-19.

2.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is ex parte order qua assessee without going into the merits of the case. According to him, there is violation of natural justice, therefore, prayed for one more opportunity before the (AY 2018-19) Rajendiran Harikrishnan :: 2 ::

1. Ld.CIT(A) and also the assessee brought to the notice of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) that notice issued u/s.148 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) issued on 29.03.2022 is bad in law. However, the Ld.DR pointed out that only after the notification published by the CBDT in the official gazette, the notification would come into effect. The Ld.AR fairly didn’t press this ground and again pleaded for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A).

3.

The Ld.DR also pointed out that the appeal of the assessee is time barred by ‘118’ days and hence, it is not maintainable. In this regard, the Ld.AR brought to our notice that the assessee has filed petition for condoning the delay along with the affidavit explaining the reason for the delay which is mainly due to the fact that the assessee was not aware of passing of the impugned order. And he came to know about the existence of the impugned order only when he got a telephone call from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) reminding him about the recovery of outstanding demand arising from the passing of the impugned order. And then the assessee immediately filed an appeal on 26.11.2025 with a delay of ‘118’ days. Having gone through the contents of the affidavit/petition for condoning the delay and taking note that there were glitches in the system, it can’t be said that the assessee was aware of the existence of the impugned order. Hence, the assessee not filing the appeal within time, can’t be termed to be deliberate since the assessee is (AY 2018-19) Rajendiran Harikrishnan noted to have filed within the time the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay subject to assessee remitting cost of ₹5,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within three (3) months of receipt of this order; and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the Ld.CIT(A).

Having held so, we note that Ground Nos.3-5 raised by the assessee before us is against the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) passing order ex parte qua assessee without going into the merits of the case. In this regard, it is noted that the Ld.CIT(A) had issued ‘4’ notices which according to him has not been complied with by the assessee. In this regard, it was brought to our notice that due to glitches in the system/internet, the notice couldn’t be served upon the assessee, which got delivered into the ‘spam’ account of the assessee. Hence, the assessee can’t be faulted for not responding to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the appeal in accordance to law.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →