RAMA RAO VENU GOPALA RAO,TAMIL NADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, TAMIL NADU

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 14.10.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y) 2019-20 against the order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) dated 23.09.2021.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his revised return of income on 30.07.2020 for A.Y.2019-20, declaring total income of Rs.44,73,340/-. The assessee had claimed relief u/s.89 of the Act for an amount of Rs.9,48,431/- against salary received in arrears or advances on which TDS had been :-2-: ITA. No:2877/Chny/2025 deducted by the employer of the assessee. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and accordingly the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices and called for details. In response to the notice, the assessee submitted its reply along with details for consideration of the AO. On perusal of the details submitted by the assessee, the AO disallowed the relief claimed by the assessee u/s.89 of the Act by arriving a total income of Rs.44,73,340/- and concluded the assessment proceedings by passing an order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 23.09.2021.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 24.11.2021.

At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided three opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 7.1 of the ld.CIT(A) order to support the appeal of the assessee. However, the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices and hence, the ld.CIT(A) passed an order dated 14.10.2025 by confirming the order of the Assessing Officer.

The ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of non-prosecution without considering the genuine reasons for non- submissions of further responses, such as COVID-19 impacts, lack of internet access in rural area, and technical issues in the faceless portal and hence the assessee was not aware of the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) and hence he could not appear and submit the valid evidence before the ld.CIT(A). In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of Assessing Officer. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment proceedings effectively.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that both the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to appear before them. However, the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the ld.AR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed order by considering the submissions made by the assessee along with the information available

Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we are deeming it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and hence we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file to ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.