VASANTHAKOKILAM,CHENNAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 10(3), CHENNAI, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that this was the second round of litigation and the assessee should have been more diligent. However, considering the technical glitch as a plausible reason and in the interest of justice, one more opportunity was granted. A cost of ₹5,000 was imposed on the assessee for the delay.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 211 days. The primary reason for non-representation before the CIT(A) was that notices from the NFAC went into the spam folder, leading to ignorance of the proceedings. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal and non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to technical glitches with email notices can be condoned, and if so, what is the appropriate course of action?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 18.12.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2011-12.
At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the appeal has been preferred with a delay of ‘211’ days and the assessee has filed an affidavit along with application for condoning the delay. Having gone through the contents of the affidavit and the application for condoning the delay in filing of appeal, though we find reasonable cause for the delay but there are certain lapses, for which, assessee shall remit 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).
Coming to the merits of the appeal, it is noted that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order qua assessee since assessee didn’t represent itself before the Ld.CIT(A). In this regard, the assessee brought to our notice that the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) didn’t reach him, due to glitches in the system and has gone into the ‘spam’ account of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee couldn’t participate in the appellate proceedings. Therefore, the assessee pleads for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A).
Per contra, the Ld.DR brought to our notice that this is the second round before the Ld.CIT(A) after the Tribunal had set aside the original assessment proceedings back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. Pursuant to the Tribunal order, the AO passed the assessment on 28.09.2021 for AY 2011-12 and the assessee had filed the appeal belatedly i.e. with a delay of ‘49’ days citing Civid-19. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) condoned the delay and given several opportunities to the (AY 2011-12) Vasanthakokilam assessee i.e. notices dated 15.11.2022, 08.04.2024, 01.08.2024, 04.10.2024 and then on 12.11.2024, but according to the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee didn’t bother to appear. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. Hence, Ld DR doesn’t want us to give assessee one more opportunity.
The main plea of the assessee for not participating in the first appellate proceeding is that she didn’t get notices issued by the NFAC since the notices got delivered in the ‘spam’ account of her and therefore she was in the dark about the ongoing appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. Therefore, the assessee prayed for one more last opportunity before Ld CIT(A). In this regard, we note that this is the second round of litigation for the AY 2011-12, and the assessee ought to have been diligent but is found to be lackadaisical. Therefore, we have levied cost of ₹5,000/- for condoning the delay in filing of appeal before us. Be that as it may. Considering the reason given by the assessee, i.e. technical glitches for not knowing about the existence of ongoing appellate proceedings, which reasons cannot be ruled out, in the interest of justice and fair play, we give one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish all supporting documents/written submissions to support the grounds of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) which assessee should file/upload without giving any excuse. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the Ld.CIT(A)’s file with a (AY 2011-12) Vasanthakokilam direction to adjudicate the grounds of appeal in accordance to law as per sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and we make it clear that considering the past history of this case, the assessee is put to notice that this will be the last opportunity to pursue his appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR of the assessee has undertaken to appear and file all the documents necessary to support its grounds of appeal.
Considering the same, the Ld.CIT(A) to pass order in accordance to law.
The Ld.CIT(A) to ensure that the assessee had remitted the cost as directed above before entertaining the appeal.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 04th day of February, 2026, in Chennai.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026