KRISHNAIYACHETTY RAMESHBABU,HOSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, HOSUR, HOSUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the impugned order, restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case and pay a cost of Rs. 10,000.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 57 days, claiming unawareness of the impugned order. The assessment was made on a best judgment basis due to the assessee's failure to furnish requisite details.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ/वाल ,लेखा सद3 एवं माननीय +ी मनु कुमार िग7र, �ाियक सद3 के सम8। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Krishnaiyachetty Rameshbabu ACIT बनाम/ Vs. 2/18, Jakkappan Nagar 4th Cross, Circle-1 Krishnagiri-635 001. Hosur. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AASPR-2711-H (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ� कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman (FCA)-Ld.AR � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
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 27-09-2023 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 144 of the Act on 20-12-2019.
The Registry has noted the delay of 57 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the Ld. AR on the strength of an affidavit of the assessee. It has been submitted that the assessee was not aware of the impugned order and the same came to light only when summons u/s 131 (1A) were issued to the assessee subsequently. It has also been stated that delay was neither wanton nor willful. Though Ld. Sr. DR opposed the condonation of delay, however, considering the period of delay, the delay is condoned and we proceed with the disposal of the appeal. The Ld. AR has pleaded for another opportunity of hearing which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. 3. It emerges that the assessment has been made on best judgment basis since the assessee did not furnish the requisite details. The position remained the same during first appellate proceedings and accordingly, the assessment was confirmed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. 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 impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored back to Ld. AO for de novo assessment with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case. The same would come at a cost of Rs.10,000/- which shall be paid by the assessee within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same shall be furnished by the assessee to learned AO who shall proceed for de novo assessment after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith failing which Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed with assessment on merits.
The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 17th April, 2024.
More judgments on Section 131(1A)
- Boosam Kiran Kumar, Hyderabad vs The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv) -2…BMA 1/HYD/2026[2022-2023]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-2023
- Renu Arun Talwar, Mumbai vs Circle 17(1), MumbaiITA 204/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Pankajkumar Vashrambhai Kamani, Rajkot vs ITO WD 2(2)(3), RajkotITA 802/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Avinash Arora, Gwalior vs Income Tax Officer 1(1), GwaliorITA 221/AGR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Avadhesh Pareek, AjmerITA 1904/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026