SMT. VAIKUNTAM VIDYA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(6), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide necessary explanations and supporting evidence to the CIT(A) despite opportunities. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 68 days, which was condoned. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without affording sufficient opportunity.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee to present evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal
Year: 2012-13 Smt. Vaikuntam Vidya, Vs. Income Tax Officer, F1, B Block, 23/8, Sri Mathangi Aditya Non Corporate Ward 19(6), Apartments, Venkatachalam Street, Chennai. West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [PAN:ADZPV5009Q] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2012-13.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 68 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay explaining reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay. On perusal of the condonation petition and upon hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide and therefore, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
At the outset, the ld. AR Shri J. Saravanan Advocate submits that the ld. CIT(A) passed exparte order without affording sufficient opportunity. He further submits that due to the circumstances beyond his control, the assessee could not file explanation/documentary evidence in support of his claim. The ld. AR prayed to afford an opportunity to the assessee as the assessee is ready to prosecute her case without fail.
The ld. DR Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT opposed the same and drew our attention to page 2 of the impugned order and argues that the ld. CIT(A) has given ample of opportunities to the assessee, but, the assessee failed to upload her explanation to substantiate her claims.
After hearing both the parties, we find the Assessing Officer made addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] against, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). We also find that the assessee did not file any written submissions. Admittedly, as rightly pointed out by the ld. DR, the assessee could not avail the opportunities afforded by the ld. CIT(A) in furnishing required details relevant to the addition made therein, which clearly establishes that there is no assistance to the assessee to substantiating the grounds raised. Taking into consideration of the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee is at liberty to file written submissions with supporting evidences, if any. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 19th December, 2024 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026