DHEVI RAMESH,CHENNAI vs. TO, NON CORP WARD-11(3), CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वकी, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ Year: 2016-17 Dhevi Ramesh, The Income Tax Officer, No.33, Pudupet Garden Street, Vs. Non Corp Ward11(3), Royapettah, Chennai. Chennai- 600014 [PAN-ACMPD1252H) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal arises from order vide DIN/order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059772886(1) dated 16.01.2024 of the CIT(Appeal)/NFAC whereby the appeal of the assesse was dismissed on account of a delay of 543 days in filing of appeal .

2.0 At the outset the Ld.AR argued that there existed genuine and sufficient grounds with the assesse which contributed to delay in filing. It was submitted that the assesse is a Sr.Citizen who is not fairly conversant digital working. It was also submitted that the matter be restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and that the assesse assures that full compliance shall be made during appellate proceedings. 3.0 Brief facts of the case are that the sssessee filed her Return of Income on 30/01/2017 for the A.Y.2016-17 declaring a total income of Rs.6,76,790/-. Later on scrutiny was completed in this case on 06 12 2018 determining total assessed income at Rs.11,06,297/- and Net Demand of Rs.1,76,911/- u/s 143(3) of the IT Act 1961. The assessee is into the business of running canteen and car parking in the premises of M/s Udhayam Theatre Complex, Chennai which is taken under lease by the assessee and also the sole proprietor for the same. It was seen from the ITMR that during the relevant F.Y. the assessee paid interest to various loan creditors but failed to deducted TDS on Payment of interest Rs.13,85,600- out of total payment. Hence, assesse had violated the provision of section 194A of the Act. Hence, the expenses attracting provision of section 40a(ia) needs to be disallowed and brought to tax. Accordingly, the case was reopened u/s 147 with the prior approval of the competent authority and notice to this effect issued to the assessee u/s 148 of the IT Act 1961 and served on 27/03/2021. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assesse failed to respond to notice issued by the AO who then proceeded to make addition of Rs, 4,15,680/- u/s 194A rws 40(a)(i) . The appeal of the assesse was dismissed by the CIT(A) on account of same being filed late . 4.0 The Ld. DR contested the submissions of the assessee arguing that the assesse was in the knowledge of passing of assessment order and accordingly relied upon the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of facts of the case and material available on records. On perusal of the order it is seen that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal for non- compliance to his notices and proceeded to confirm the additions made by the AO, the latter order also done ex-parte. The appellant has unequivocally assured that it shall comply with all the notices issued by the Revenue. No appellant gains by non-prosecution of its case and reasonable opportunity of being heard is a natural right of every litigant. We are 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 before the Ld.AO. The matter is restored to file of the AO because he is the first authority who has the right to adjudicate on return of income and in this case the said right could not be exercised because of non-compliance by the tax payer. Accordingly, placing reliance upon