SARPRASADAM EMMANUEL JAYASEELAN,TIRUCHIRAPALLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUCHIRAPALLI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the 3-day delay in filing the appeals before it. It was held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without issuing proper notices to the assessee for explaining the delay, thus violating the principles of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed three appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) which were dismissed in limine due to delay. The assessee's appeals to the Tribunal were delayed by 3 days. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals before him for delays of 333, 194, and 189 days without issuing notices.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals in limine without providing the assessee with an opportunity to explain the delay in filing.
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 GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
आदेश /O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against three different orders of CIT(A), all dated 10.07.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.
to 2376/CHNY/2024 2. There is a delay of 3 days in filing these three appeals before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed petitions for condonation of delay along with the supporting affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of these appeals. 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 these appeals. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits.
At the very outset, we notice that these appeals have been dismissed by the CIT(A) in limine without condoning the delay of 333 days, 194 days and 189 days in filing the appeals before him. The ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) had taken note of the reason stated in column 15 of Form No.35 filed before him and rejected the appeals of the assessee. It was submitted by the ld.AR, the reason stated by the assessee in column 15 in Form 35 filed before the CIT(A) was in brief and the assessee did not file an elaborate condonation application. It was further submitted by the ld.AR that the CIT(A) ought to have issued notice to the assessee calling for his explanation for the delay in filing the appeals before him, before dismissing the appeals in limine. to 2376/CHNY/2024 3. The ld.DR was duly heard.
We have heard rival submission and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay of 333 days, 194 days and 189 days respectively. We noticed that the CIT(A) after extracting the reasons stated in column 15 of Form No.35 filed before him, had dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine, without issuing notices to the assessee to explain the reason for filing the appeals before him belatedly. The principle of natural justice requires that notice should be issued to the assessee seeking his explanation why the delay in filing the appeals before him cannot be condoned. In the instant cases, such notices were never issued by the CIT(A) in all the three appeals. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that the matter needs to be restored back to the files of the CIT(A). Accordingly, we restore the matter to the files of the CIT(A) so that a proper condonation application if required can be filed by the assessee concerned and on receipt of the same, the CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee before a decision is taken on the condonation applications. It is ordered accordingly. to 2376/CHNY/2024 5. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20th November, 2024 at Chennai.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026