SA L AND COMPANY,MADURAI vs. ITO, NON CROP CIRCLE 1, MADURAI
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 674 days. The reason for the delay was that the former auditor's email ID was still registered on the e-filing portal, and the assessee was unaware of communications and the impugned appellate order. The assessee came to know of the order later and took steps to file the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay as there was sufficient cause for the belated filing, attributing no latches to the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the First Appellate Authority's order was ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and whether the ex-parte order of the FAA should be restored for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 10.10.2023 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.
ITA No.3126/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. There is a delay of 674 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated in the affidavit are that the managing partner of the assessee firm is a senior citizen and was not conversant with the procedural requirements for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It is further explained that the email ID of the erstwhile auditor continued to remain registered on the Income-tax e-filing portal and, therefore, all statutory communications including the impugned appellate order were sent to the said email ID. Due to the failure of the former auditor to intimate the assessee about the receipt of such communications, the assessee remained unaware of the passing of the impugned order and the consequential limitation period. The assessee came to know of the order only at a later stage during an internal review, whereupon immediate steps were taken to engage a Chartered Accountant and file the appeal without further delay. On perusal of the reasons stated in the affidavit, we are of the view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.
ITA No.3126/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: 3. At the very outset, we notice that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) is ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to two notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.
The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the while filing appeal before the FAA, the assessee has given the email id belonging to one of its employees, who had left his employment from the office. Hence, the notices issued by the FAA could not be complied by the assessee. Therefore, the assessee could not represent its case before the FAA during the appellate proceedings. Hence, it was prayed in the interest of justice and equity, the issue may be restored to the files of the FAA as a last opportunity for proper representation of his case.
The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the FAA and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was prayed the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.
We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceeding before the FAA was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued. The Ld.AR submitted the notices were sent to an email ID of assessee’s employee, who had
ITA No.3126/Chny/2025 :- 4 -: left the office and hence, assessee could not comply with the proceedings before the FAA. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the office of the FAA. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the matter ought to be restored to the files of the FAA as a last opportunity. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the FAA for fresh adjudication. The FAA shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 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 30th January, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एस.आर. रघुनाथा) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 30th January, 2026 RSR आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Madurai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.
