KOTTAYIL ATHIKATTE SUKUMARAN,NILGIRIS vs. ITO, WARD-1,, OOTY
Facts
The assessee, an individual, did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on information regarding payments made to contractors, sale of immovable property, cash deposits, and rent received. The assessee did not respond to notices from the AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], leading to an ex-parte assessment order.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 194 days in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause. The Tribunal observed that notices from the CIT(A) were sent to an incorrect email address. To provide an opportunity for a fair hearing, the appeal was remitted back to the AO for consideration on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment order passed ex-parte by the CIT(A) is sustainable when notices were not served on the correct email address of the assessee and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
148, 147, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND MS. PADMAVATHY.S
आदेश / O R D E R
PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 25.02.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.
The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income. The A.O received information that the assessee has made payments to the contractors amounting to Rs.4,19,94,100/-, sold immovable property valued at Rs. 7,30,05,900/-, deposited cash to the tune of Rs. 3,15,000/- and received
ITA No.3186/Chny/2025 Kottayil Athikatte Sukumaran :- 2 -:
rent amounting to Rs.6,72,000/- during the year under consideration. Therefore, the A.O reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Since, the assessee did not respond to the notices, the A.O passed the order u/s. 147 of the Act assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.11,59,87,000/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) upheld the order of the A.O ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).
There is a delay of 194 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone the delay of 194 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the notice of hearing by the CIT(A) were sent to nomailid@abc.com which is not the registered email ID of the assessee. The Ld. AR in this regard drew our attention to the return of income mentioning the email id as sukummaran@gmail.com and the screenshot of the various notices issued to a different email ID (page 1 to 7 of paper book). The Ld. AR further submitted that only when the notice of demand was received by the assessee in the correct email id, the assessee came to know that the CIT(A) has dismissed the
ITA No.3186/Chny/2025 Kottayil Athikatte Sukumaran :- 3 -:
appeal. The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and prayed for one more opportunity to present case properly before the lower authorities.
The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued that the assessee has been consistently non cooperative before the both the A.O and the CIT(A). Accordingly the Ld. DR prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be upheld.
We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances as enumerated herein above, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee to represent the case properly in the interest of justice and fair-play. Accordingly, we remit the appeal back to the A.O for consideration of the impugned issues on merits by calling for required details to decide the case in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to file necessary details and co-operate with assessment proceeding without seeking unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly.
Further, we also levy a cost of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand only) in the appeal since considerable time and efforts have been spent by the Exchequer and for the reason that the assessee being delinquent before the lower authorities. The same shall be paid by the assessee to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the A.O.
ITA No.3186/Chny/2025 Kottayil Athikatte Sukumaran :- 4 -:
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 29th day of January, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (पदमावती यस) (Padmavathy.S) (George George K) उपा�� / Vice President लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य /Accountant Member लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 29th January, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF
