What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case and pass a speaking order.

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 130 days, citing Covid-19 and the demise of their Chartered Accountant. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without providing an adequate opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex parte order without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable.

Nagarathinam Ramesh, Kanchipuram vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA

Hearing: 22.07.2024

Nagarathinam Ramesh, Income Tax Officer, 33/8, Pudupalayam Street, Ward-2, Pillayarpalayam, Kanchipuram Kanchipuram-631501 [PAN: AOMPR7356C] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Tarun, Adv. For S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri G.Suresh, JCIT ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 : 09.08.2024 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement 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/250/2023-24/1058077295(1) dated 20.11.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2017-

18.

Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 20.11.2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi.

2.0 It is noted that there is a delay of ‘130’ days in filing of this appeal, for which, assesse has filed Condonation petition. It has been explained that the delay is attributable to Covid-19 scenario as well as unfortunate demise of assesse’s Chattered Accountant. Having perused the same, we are satisfied that there is reasonable cause for delay. So, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

3.0 At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assesse pointed out that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order without hearing the assesse; and has only reiterated the AO’s action. According to the Ld.AR, the assesse was not offered adequate opportunity from the the Office of the Ld.CIT(A), which prevented the assesse from effectively presenting its case. Therefore, he pleaded for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A).

4.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assesse.

5.0 We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order qua assesse. According to the assesse, it was not offered adequate opportunity to defend its case. The order of Ld.CIT(A) shows that he also has not passed a speaking order and merely delved upon assumptions.

Be that as it may, it should be borne in mind that if an assesse is aggrieved by the Assessment Order, he has statutory right of appeal before the First Appellate Authority and such a right would be futile, if the First Appellate Authority doesn’t give proper opportunity of hearing to the assesse. Therefore, for the ends of justice and fair play, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assesse, and therefore, set-aside the impugned order of Ld CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to his file; and the assesse is directed to file written submissions/relevant documents to substantiate the grounds of appeal and the Ld.CIT(A) to pass order in accordance to law after hearing the assesse. 6.0 In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 9th August, 2024 at Chennai.

NAGARATHINAM RAMESH,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-2, KANCHEEPURAM

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments