What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the death of the assessee's husband shortly after the assessment order and, in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation and hear the appeal on merits.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 396 days. The assessee explained the delay was due to the recent death of her husband and the resulting grief and trauma.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to the death of the assessee's husband and the resulting trauma.

Usha Ramasubramania, Chennai vs DCIT | ITAT Chennai 2026

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 28.07.2026Pronounced: 21.09.2026

Pआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी इंटूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद� एवं �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� के सम� । Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.545/Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Usha Ramasubramanian, Vs. The DCIT, S 117/5,Topaz Tract Apartment, 6th Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Main Road, Anna Nagar East, Chennai- Chennai. 600040. [PAN: AAOPU1202C]

(अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. Madhan Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 28.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 21.09.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 01.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2015-16.

At the outset, it is noted that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on non-satisfaction of the reasons explained by the assessee for the delay of 396 days.

2 I.T.A. No.545/Chny/26

Ld. AR, Mr. D. Anand, Advocate, placed on record the death summary of the assessee’s husband and submits that the AO passed the order on 27.09.2021 and the husband of the assessee had expired approximately one month after the assessment order, i.e., on 29.08.2021. The assessee was in grief and trauma and could not file the appeal in time before the Ld. CIT(A). He prayed to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for his fresh consideration by giving another opportunity to the assessee in the interest of justice.

The Ld. DR, Mr. Madhan Kumar, Sr. DR, reported no objection.

Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the record, we note that, as pointed out by Ld. AR, the husband of the assessee had expired on 29.08.2021, which is evident from the death summary issued by the SRM Institutes for Medical Science, Vadapalani, wherein it is clearly stated the cause of death at column No. 5. Therefore, considering the same and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the delay condonation petition to condone the delay and proceed to hear the assessee on the issue on merits. Ld. CIT(A) shall pass an order in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to file evidences, if any, in

3 I.T.A. No.545/Chny/26

support of her claim. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 21st September, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 21.09.2026 MM/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.

MANISH Digitally signed by MANISH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2026.09.23 16:12:06 +05'30'

USHA RAMASUBRAMANIA,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments