SEALAND GOVUNDE PALANISAMY KAILASAPPAN KATHIRESAN,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, , POLLACHI

Sealand Govunde Palanisamy Income Tax Officer, Kailasappan Kathiresan. Ward-1, No.542/1, Kailasappan Thottam, Coimbatore Sellandikavundanpudur, Devambadi Post, Pollachi, Coimbatore-642005 [PAN: BBGPK5489R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri A.Arjun Raj, C.A. by virtual, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.Chinthapalli Meher Chand, JCIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22.10.2024 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/APL/S/250/2023-24/1062816800(1) dated 18.03.2024 for the assessment years 2017-18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 18.03.2024 passed by ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Delhi.

2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 98 days in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that it is not well conversant with English language nor with the computerized working and totally dependent upon his tax consultant who contributed to delay by delayed download of assessment order and consequential late filing. 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. 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 144 dated 27.11.2019 and that the appeal was dismissed on account of non-appearance. In assesse’s case there were some cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Ld. AO passed an ex-parte order holding non-compliance on the part of the assesse. Before the Ld. First Appellate Authority the assesse filed appeal with statement of facts and accompanying documents and waited for personal hearing. 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 submitted that the assesse is illiterate farmer who does not understand electronic assessment processes and hence could not make compliance to the appellate’s notices. 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 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 are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the case is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after giving opportunities of being heard to the assesse and to pass a speaking order. He will be at liberty to call for any remand report from the Ld. AO if warranted by the facts of the case. The assesse shall be bound to comply to all the notices and details called by the Ld. CIT(A). Any non- compliance from the assesse side shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority