PONMUDI MUTHUSAMY GOUNDER TRUST,TIRUPPUR vs. DCIT(E), COIMBATORE

The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that since the assessee has paid 20% of the demand, balance amount be stayed. She also stated that the Department has attached its bank accounts maintained with Indian Bank & Karur Vysya Bank, Tirupur. The ld.counsel for the assessee filed list of bank accounts attached which are as follows:- A. List of Bank Accounts attached are as follows. Date of Attachment - 10.07.2024 Name and branch of the bank Account number Nature of account Indian Bank, MSME Tirupur 6002244363 Current Account Indian Bank, MSME Tirupur 6166275622 Current Account Indian Bank, MSME Tirupur 6204402377 Current Account Indian Bank, MSME Tirupur 908163089 Current Account Indian Bank, MSME Tirupur 6194613160 Current Account Indian Bank, MSME Tirupur 950618107 Current Account Indian Bank, MSME Tirupur 0710541454 Current Account Indian Bank, MSME Tirupur 6002243472 Current Account Indian Bank, MSME Tirupur 6168713417 Current Account Indian Bank, MSME Tirupur 6215084258 Current Account Indian Bank, MSME Tirupur 6740582946 Current Account Indian Bank, MSME Tirupur 6433922690 Current Account Indian Bank, MSME Tirupur 6389527837 Current Account Indian Bank, MSME Tirupur 6985742223 Current Account KARUR VYSYA BANK Tirupur 1197140000000013 Current Account KARUR VYSYA BANK Tirupur 1197140000000049 Current Account KARUR VYSYA BANK Tirupur 1197140000000025 Current Account KARUR VYSYA BANK Tirupur 1197140000000037 Current Account KARUR VYSYA BANK Tirupur 1197140000000051 Current Account 4 S.A Nos. 43 to 46/Chny/2024 to 2044/CHNY/2024 The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the date of attachment is 10.07.2024 and in case, this attachment is not lifter, the assessee will not be able to do any business.

The ld.counsel for the assessee further stated that the orders of CIT(A) is ex-parte and that also for default on the part of the assessee simpliciter and there is no speaking order or there is no order on merits. At that time, the ld. Senior DR was asked whether we can take up the appeals for hearing because ultimately the appeals have to go back to CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The ld. Senior DR pointed out that the assessee is non-cooperative and careless, as number of notices were served on assessee by the CIT(A) and even before the AO, the assessee has not filed details or in term of the some of the notice, he has not appeared even. We noted that the CIT(A) has simpliciter dismissed the appeals for default and not adjudicated or decided merits of the case. After going through the provisions of the Act particularly provision of section 250 of the Act, we are of the view that unless the statute authorizes the quasi judicial authority to dismiss the appeal for default expressly or by inevitable implication but the appellate authority has to decide the appeal on merits and not dismiss it for default. For this, we rely on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of 5 S.A Nos. 43 to 46/Chny/2024 to 2044/CHNY/2024 Madras in the case of Southern Steel Industries vs. AAC (CT), [1996] 101 STC 273 (Mad). The ld. Senior DR consented for hearing of these appeals in the given facts and circumstances.

These appeals by the assessee in to 2045/CHNY/2024 are arising out of the different orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi in Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/ 1065093746 (1), 1065093892(1), 1057862068(1) & 1064049127(1) dated 24.05.2024, 24.05.2024, 10.11.2023, 12.04.2024 respectively. The assessments were framed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Coimbatore for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide orders dated 29.03.2016, 29.12.2016 & 28.12.2017 respectively and the assessment for the assessment year 2018-19 was framed by the 6 S.A Nos. 43 to 46/Chny/2024 to 2044/CHNY/2024 Assessing Officer, National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi u/s.143(3) r.w.s.143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act vide order dated 30.03.2021.

At the outset, it is noticed that these appeals by assessee in & 2043/CHNY/2024 are barred by limitation by 8 days, is barred by limitation by 50 days. It is noticed from Form 36 that the order of CIT(A) dated 24.05.2024/10.11.2023/12.04.2024 were received by assessee on 24.05.2024/10.11.2023/12.04.2024 itself. But all these four appeals were filed on 31.07.2024 with a delay of 8 / 204 / 50 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition for condoning the delay along with affidavit. The assessee has stated the following common reason in its condonation petitions and requested for condonation of delay:- “The Petitioner is a trust and for the impugned Assessment Year 2014-15, an assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) and a demand of Rs. 1,25,19,620/- was raised and against which the Petitioner filed an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The National Faceless Appeal Centre passed u/s.250 dated 24.05.2024. The Petitioner was not aware of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have been filed on or before 23.07.2024, which is 60 days from the date of order, i.e.24.05.2024. The appeal was filed on 31.07.2024 with a delay of 8 days. It is submitted that the Petitioner trust's employees and two consultants, to whom the Petitioner entrusted the case, failed to take note of the hearing notices that were issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre and further failed to take note of the order u/s.250 that was passed by the 7 S.A Nos. 43 to 46/Chny/2024 to 2044/CHNY/2024 National Faceless Appeal Centre. The consultants and the employees never intimated the Petitioner trust about the hearing notices or the order u/s.250. The Managing Trustee of the Petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 76 years and he could not personally monitor the hearing notices and the order. Thereafter, the Petitioner's bank accounts were attached on 10.07.2024. The Petitioner came to know of the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre u/s.250, only when the Managing Trustee contacted a new consultant as to the reason for the bank attachment. Subsequently, the consultant guided the Petitioner about the legal processes and the implication of the order passed u/s.250. The Petitioner then approached Smt.T.V.MuthuAbirami, Advocate and the Case was explained To Smt.T.V.MuthuAbirami, Advocate and the Petitioner sought her opinion on the case. Smt.T.V.MuthuAbirami, Advocate, after going through the Petitioner's file, opined that the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) can be assailed by way of an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is submitted that the Petitioner requested Smt.T.V.MuthuAbirami, Advocate to draft the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and file the same before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Smt.T.V.MuthuAbirami, Advocate prepared the appeal immediately and sent it for the Petitioner's signature on 28.07.2024, so that the samne may be filed with no further delay. The Petitioner received the appeal papers on 29.07.2024 and signed it on the same day and handed over the papers back to Smt.T.V.MuthuAbirami, Advocate on 30.07.2024. It is submitted that the appeal was finally filed on 31.07.2024 with a delay of 8 days. Because the Petitioner was not aware of the appellate order in respect of the appeal, the Petitioner had filed the appeal before this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal only on 31.07.2024, with a delay of 8 days. The Petitioner was not aware of the hearing notices or the order issued passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre. Had the Petitioner known about the notices /order, it would have represented before the first appellate authority and would have also filed the appeal on time. Only when the bank accounts held by the Petitioner were attached, the Petitioner came to know of the order passed by the first appellate authority. It is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton and only because of the reasons cited above. No prejudice would be caused to the Income Tax Department if the delay is condoned. On the other hand, irreparable injury would be caused to the appellant if the delay is not condoned.”

As the orders of CIT(A) are ex-parte and no adjudication on merits, we are inclined to set aside these orders and remand the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits subject to a condition that assessee will pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) in each of the appeal. The assessee will pay this cost of Rs. 25,000/- in each of the appeal, to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras by the assessee within a month’s time from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee will pay these costs and produce the receipts before the CIT(A). In term of the above, the matter in these four years are remanded back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Since we have heard the appeals and decided, the Stay petitions becomes infructuous and hence, dismissed.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in to 2045/CHNY/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay applications filed by the assessee in S.A Nos.43 to 46/CHNY/2024 dismissed.