VIJAYALAKSHMI AND CO,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD-12(1), CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ/वाल ,लेखा सद4 एवं माननीय +ी मनु कुमार िग7र, �ाियक सद4 के सम8। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.340/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/s Vijayalakshmi and Co. ITO C/o G.Badri Narayana & Co. (CA) Non-corporate ward 12(1) बनाम/ Vs. New No.13, Old No.6/2, Sait Colony Chennai 2nd Street, Egmore Chennai – 600 008 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AANFV-0608-A (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ� कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Shravan Gattupalli (CA) – Ld. AR � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri ARV Srinivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 01-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017- 18 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 18-08-2022 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 144 of the Act on 25-12-2019. The registry has noted delay of 477 days in the appeal, the condonation of which

has been sought by Ld. AR by way of condonation petition. It has been stated that the assessee did not receive any email or post communicating the impugned order. On 27-01-2024, the assessee received a letter containing details of outstanding demands and the assessee immediately sought the advice of CA. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred with a delay. It has further been stated that the delay was not deliberate bur due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Though Ld. Sr. DR opposed condonation of delay, however, considering the aforesaid factual position, the delay is condoned and we proceed for adjudication of appeal on merits. The Ld. AR has sought another opportunity of hearing before lower authorities which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. 2. In the assessment order, Ld. AO estimated business income @8% and assessed the income at Rs.12.60 Lacs since the assessee failed to make any substantive submissions. The position remained the same during appellate proceedings and accordingly, the assessment was confirmed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. Though the assessee has remained negligent, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. Accordingly, the orders of lower authorities are set aside and the matter is restored back to Ld. AO to frame de novo assessment with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case forthwith failing which Ld. AO shall be at liberty to frame assessment on the basis of material on record. A reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) �ाियक सद4 / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद4 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे4ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 01-05-2024 DS आदेशकीTितिलिपअ/ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. � थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु=/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडBफाईल/GF