VETABAYAN PALANI,DHARMAPURI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, DHARMAPURI

Vetabayan Palani, The Income Tax Officer, No.4/216, Solakottai Village, Ward-1, Nayakkanahalli Post, Dharmapuri Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu-636002. [PAN: BRWPP7347D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent by : Shri Chinthapalli Meher Chand, JCIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23.10.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 08.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054608818(1) dated 26.07.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2012- 13. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 26.07.2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi.

2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 337 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that he was having some medical issues and was not aware of the notices issued by the First Appellate Authority resulting in ex parte order passed u/s 250. The assessees Chartered accountants advised him to file before this tribunal. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not posed any serious objections. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 02.12.2019 and that the appeal was dismissed on account of non-appearance. As per the assessment order the assesse had deposited cash of Rs.20,50,000/- in his bank account and no return of income was filed. The Ld. AO noted non-compliance by the assesse to the notices u/s 148, 129, 142(1) and proceeded to complete the assessment on “Best judgement assessment” basis u/s 144 by making the addition of impugned amount. The Ld. CIT(A) however chose to dismiss the appeal on the premise on non-appearance. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse pleaded that the assesse has been denied reasonable opportunity of being heard. It was accordingly prayed that matter may be considered for restoration to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse assured that full compliance would be made now. The Ld. DR proposed that cost may be levied upon the assesse. 4.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is trite law that no litigant benefits by non- prosecution of its case. We find sufficient force in the pleadings of the assesse, as to why it could not prosecute its case. We have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of non-appearance by the assesse the Ld. CIT(A) has not touched upon merits of the case. We have also noted that the Ld. AO in his order also clearly indicated that complete details were not forthcoming from the assesse. As a result of which he had to resort to ex-parte assessment. We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present its case and file supporting evidences. Accordingly, we set aside the order of authorities below. The assessing officer is the primary authority to determine taxable income of a tax payer by collecting and colleting evidences. Accordingly, placing reliance upon the decision