RAJARAM RAJAN,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), SALEM, SALEM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, granting the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 72 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 assessee should be granted another opportunity for de novo assessment despite a significant delay and failure to provide details earlier.
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 Rajaram Rajan ITO बनाम/ Vs. 28/9, Adhiraman Nandavanam Street, Ward-1(2) Shevapet, Salem-636 002. Salem. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ABTPR-5322-A (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 12-09-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act on 25-05-2023.
The Registry has noted the delay of 72 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 passing of impugned order. The same came to light only when penalty notice was received by the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR has opposed the condonation of delay, however, considering the period of delay, the delay is condoned and we proceed with 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.5,000/- which shall be deposited 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 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026