VANARAJAN PRAKASH,TIRUPPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3975/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 September 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it. It held that the FAA should have considered the detailed reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal before the FAA. The matter was restored to the FAA for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 51 days. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) had dismissed the assessee's earlier appeal due to a delay of 983 days without condoning it. The assessee provided reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the FAA.

What were the issues?

Whether the FAA was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the reasons for delay. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the FAA should have been condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 15.09.2026Pronounced: 16.09.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-3, Hyderabad, dated 27.03.2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19.

- 2 - ITA No. 3975/CHNY/2026 Vanarajan Prakash 2. There is a delay of 51 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the belated filing of the appeal. The assessee stated that, after consulting his Chartered Accountant in April 2026, further action could not be taken due to the Chartered Accountant’s religious trip and subsequent health complications, resulting in his inability to attend to professional duties. He resumed work only in the third week of July 2026, after which legal advice was obtained and the appeal was filed on 01.08.2026 with a delay of 51 days. On perusal of the reasons stated, we are of the view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.

3.

At the very outset, we notice that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 983 days in filing.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR contended that the reasons stated before the FAA in Form 35 for belated filing of the appeal is as follows: “due to Corona I am unable to attend the notices and order. Further, I was in a opinion that since the further years agricultural

- 3 - ITA No. 3975/CHNY/2026 Vanarajan Prakash income are admitted under 143(3) the department will automatically rectify the order.”

5.

It was submitted that, assessee during the course of appellate proceedings was directed to give a detailed reasons for belated filing of the appeal vide letter dated 29.01.2026. The time limit in compliance to give response to the letter dated 29.01.2026 was 09.02.2026. It was submitted by the Ld.AR, the assessee had given detailed reasons for belated filing of the appeal. However, the same was not taken note of and appeal was dismissed in limine on account of late filing of the appeal. The Ld.AR requested the appeal may be restored to the FAA to consider the detailed reasons given for belated filing of the appeal and for condonation of delay.

6.

The Ld.DR supported the order of the FAA.

7.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. For AY 2018-19, the assessee has disclosed gross agricultural income of Rs.1,81,10,050/-, against which expenditure of Rs.85,03,110/- was claimed as deduction and declared net agricultural income of Rs.96,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) in the assessment completed u/s. 143 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23.04.2021, treated the entire gross agricultural income of Rs.1,81,10,050/- as

- 4 - ITA No. 3975/CHNY/2026 Vanarajan Prakash unexplained income u/s. 68 of the Act and invoked provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The Ld.AR during the course of hearing before us had placed on record that, for the subsequent year 2020-21 net agricultural income declared at Rs.1,19,37,850/- was accepted in scrutiny assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 12.09.2022. Further, for AY 2024-25, net agricultural income disclosed was Rs.2,29,80,190/-, which was accepted in the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 02.02.2026.

8.

As regards the issue of belated filing of the appeal before the FAA, we notice that assessee had given detailed reasons for late filing of appeal before the FAA. The same has been uploaded in the portal on 09.02.2026. However, the FAA has stated that there was no response from the assessee for the final opportunity given by his office vide letter dated 29.01.2026. On the facts of the instant case, we are of the view the matter needs to be restored to the file of the FAA and we do so. The FAA is directed to consider delay condonation application filed by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings and take a decision in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly.

- 5 - ITA No. 3975/CHNY/2026 Vanarajan Prakash 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th September, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (इंटूर� रामा राव) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (GEORGE GEORGE K) (INTURI RAMA RAO) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 16th September, 2026 JPV, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT- Chennai/Madurai/Salem/Coimbatore 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.

Digitally signed by PRASANNA PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.09.17 14:08:11 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →