E.V. MUTHUKUMARARAMALINGAM,TIRUPPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE -1, TIRUPPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the
Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in
short ‘the Ld.CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 26.02.2024 for the Assessment Year
(hereinafter in short ‘AY’) 2013-14.
At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee pointed out that the
Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without going into the merits of
the case. According to the Ld.AR, since there was a delay of 144 days in
filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the
ITA No.1031/Chny/2024 (AY 2013-14) Shri E.V.Muthukumara Ramalingam :: 2 ::
assessee. According to the Ld.AR, the delay in filing of the appeal before
the Ld.CIT(A) was not deliberate. According to him, he has brought to
the notice of his Auditor, the assessment passed against him, but due to
oversight on the part of the Auditor (during October-November, 2022), he
misplaced the file; and therefore, he couldn’t file the appeal on or before
29.10.2022. Therefore, according to the Ld.AR, assessee shouldn’t be
penalized for the fault of the professionals and prayed that the delay may
be condoned and the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A)
to decide the statutory appeal on merits as per sub-section (6) of sec.250
of the Act.
Per contra, the Ld.DR does not want us to give assessee one more
innings.
Having heard both the parties and after perusal of records, we note
that the Ld.CIT(A) has noted that there was a delay of 144 days in filing
of the appeal before him. Therefore, he didn’t condone the delay and
dismissed the appeal. We do not countenance such an action of the
Ld.CIT(A). If assessee is aggrieved by the action of the AO, he has
statutory right to appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) is duty
bound to decide the appeal in accordance to law as per sub-section (6) of
sec.250 of the Act. In the present case, we note that assessee ought to
have filed the appeal on or before 29.09.2022 against the penalty levied
ITA No.1031/Chny/2024 (AY 2013-14) Shri E.V.Muthukumara Ramalingam :: 3 ::
by the AO as noted [supra] due to omission on the part of the Auditor. According to us, the assessee should not be penalized for the fault of his auditor. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to his file, with a direction to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be diligent and file relevant documents/written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) and is directed to decide the levy of penalty as per sub-section (6) of sec.250 of the Act.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 27th day of June, 2024, in Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज कुमार अ�वाल) (एबी टी. वक�) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �याियक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 27th June, 2024. TLN, Sr.PS आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR
ITA No.1031/Chny/2024 (AY 2013-14) Shri E.V.Muthukumara Ramalingam :: 4 :: 5. गाड�फाईल/GF
