SEERALAN RAVI,CHENNAI vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of ‘156’ days in filing of this appeal and assessee has filed condonation petition stating that he is Proprietor of M/s shell credit management services, which is & 1380/Chny/2024 (AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13) Mr. Seeralan Ravi :: 2 ::

primarily engaged as a collection agent of SBI cards HDFC and payment services limited. And the nature of work involves dealing with various staff wherein there are 650 employees, collection personals dealing with statutory authorities etc. which is quite laborious task and not so organized business and also due to dispute between common purchasers for property, he could not get hold of the copy of sale deed required for the purpose of filing the appeal to tribunal due to which he had been lacking on the compliance part before the Income Tax department. Therefore, appeal could not be filed. Having perused the affidavit, we are satisfied that there is reasonable cause for delay. So, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

The Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order qua assessee without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. According to the Ld.AR, even Assessment Order was passed on 26.12.2018 without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee by passing best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short ‘the Act’) (ex parte). According to the assessee, the AO issued only one notice i.e. on 03.12.2018 u/s.143(2) of the Act, which the assessee didn’t receive. Thereafter, the AO didn’t issue any notice and passed the best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act on 26.12.2018 for both AY’s. The assessee pleads for one more opportunity & 1380/Chny/2024 (AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13) Mr. Seeralan Ravi before AO on the ground that he didn’t get proper opportunity before AO by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC). We note that Ld CIT(A) has passed an exparte order, without adjudicating the grounds of appeal raised by assessee. Be that as it may. We also note that AO has passed an exparte order/ best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act, without hearing the assessee. Therefore, for the ends of justice and fair play, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessments back to the file of the AO with a direction to frame assessments de novo after hearing the assessee. The assessee is directed to file written submissions and relevant documents to substantiate its claim and the AO to frame assessments for both AY’s after hearing the assessee.