Mohandoss Jayaprakas Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
In the case of Mohandoss Jayaprakas vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Chennai), the assessee challenged the ex parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeal was delayed by 74 days due to the assessee’s severe illness, as stated in an affidavit. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reviewed the explanation and deemed the delay justified, condoning it to proceed with the case.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had issued five notices, none of which were attended by the assessee due to his medical condition. Consequently, the CIT(A) passed the order without considering the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. ITAT observed that under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the CIT(A) is required to adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merit, which was not done in this case. Recognizing the procedural lapse, ITAT set aside the ex parte order and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication. The case will now be reheard by the CIT(A) after granting the assessee an opportunity to present his arguments and supporting documents.
This decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and allowing taxpayers a fair opportunity to present their case, especially when valid reasons for non-compliance with procedural requirements are provided. The ITAT’s verdict reinstates the appeal for statistical purposes, ensuring the matter is revisited in accordance with the law.
