JAYANTHI,SALEM v. ITO WARD 1(6), SALEM

2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) is ex parte qua assessee. In this regard, he brought to our notice that the assessment order in this case was passed by the AO on 21.03.2022 [which was passed ex parte qua assessee] which was challenged before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of '169' days, which delay has not been condoned. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee had entrusted the case to Income Tax Practitioner (ITP) [Shri P. Periyasamy, Phone No. +91 94437-11566, Address: 463, Jaya Nagar, Gorimedu, Salem-636 008., E-mail: kp.swamy5@gmail.com] who didn't discharge his duty to represent the assessee before the AO/Ld.CIT(A) which resulted in the AO passing the 'best judgment assessment' u/s.144 of the Act and made addition of ₹2,16,93,900/- u/s.69A of the Act. Explaining the reason for cause of delay, the Ld.AR further brought to our notice that the said ITP had some personal business transaction with the assessee, because of which disputes arose between them; and hence, the said Shri Periyasamy/ITP has given legal-notice to the assessee through Advocate, Shri T. Senthil Kumaran dated 28.01.2026 [copy of which has been placed before us]. Hence, according to the Ld.AR, for the reason best known to him/ITP, he neither presented the case of the assessee before the AO/Ld.CIT(A) nor informed the assessee about the ongoing assessment/appellate proceedings, which resulted in passing of the impugned orders and hence, the delay caused before the Ld.CIT(A) and

2

this Tribunal. The assessee has vouched for the same and has filed an affidavit explaining the delay. Having gone through the contents of the affidavit and having taken note of the conduct of the ITP, Shri Periyasamy and the ongoing dispute between the ITP and the assessee, we are of the view that there is reasonable cause for the delay and at any rate can't be termed deliberate in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) as well as not representing before the AO during assessment proceedings. Hence we are inclined to condone the delay of 169 days in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A), subject to remitting cost of ₹15,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon'ble Madras High Court within three (3) months of receipt of this order; and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the AO, since the AO has also passed 'best judgment assessment' without hearing the assessee, by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company, New Delhi v. Cit, New Delhi . reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), we set-aside the impugned order of Ld CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The assessee has unequivocally assured before us that it will comply all the notices issued by the AO and furnish all the relevant documents/written submissions called for by the AO to assess income of the assessee which we expect the assessee to diligently comply with. The AO is directed to frame fresh assessment after hearing the assessee in accordance to law.

3

3. Since the quantum assessment has been restored to file of AO for fresh assessment, the penalty appeal is infructuous; but the AO is at liberty to initiate penalty, of course after assessment order is passed, if he deems fit to do so.

4. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 29^thday of April, 2026, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/-

(एस. आर. रघुनाथा)

(S.R.RAGHUNATHA)

लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

(एबी टी. वकŎ)

(ABY T. VARKEY)

ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER चÛेनई/Chennai,

Ǒदनांक/Dated: 29^thApril, 2026.

TLN

आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to:

1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant

2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent

3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore.

4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR

5. गाडŊफाईल/GF

4