ASHOKKUMAR VAITHILINGAM,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, VELLORE, VELLORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2614/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 September 2026AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was abroad for employment for a decade and was unaware of the assessment order. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file an income tax return for AY 2011-12. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case and made an ex-parte addition of Rs. 10,41,694/- as undisclosed income. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 2801 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the reasons for the delay and the merits of the case. Whether the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 192B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 27.07.2026Pronounced: 08.09.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्याययर्क सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2614/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ashokkumar Vaithilingam, The Assistant Commissioner E1311, Brigade Gardenia, vs. of Income Tax, 9th Cross, RBI Layout, Circle-1, J.P Nagar S.O, Bengaluru South, Vellore. Bengaluru – 560 078 Karnataka. [PAN: AAEPA-4398-P] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant)

अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 27.07.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 08.09.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 16.04.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)”), dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 26.12.2018 passed u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Income

:-2-: ITA. No:2614/Chny/2026. Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and employed with VFS Global Services Private Limited and did not file his return of income for AY 2011-12. On verification of the information available with the department, the AO found that the assessee has made time deposit of Rs.6,00,000/- with HDFC Bank and amount of Rs.4,41,694/- received as salary from VFS Global Services Private Limited, which has deducted TDS amounting to Rs.21,254/- u/s.192B of the Act during the assessment year. The case was reopened u/s.147 of the Act, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act and statutory notices were issued to the assessee and by calling for details. Since the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices, the AO made an addition of Rs.10,41,694/- as undisclosed income and completed the assessment by passing an exparte order u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 26.12.2018.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 22.01.2025 with a delay in filing an appeal.

5.

At the outset, we observed that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine, due to delay in filing an appeal by 2801 days. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

6.

The ld.AR submitted that the delay in filing an appeal due to the assessee was away from the country to China and USA from 2012 to 2022 for employment and he had lost touch with his previous contacts and consultants. The assessee was unaware of the hearing notices and assessment order passed by the AO in the year 2018 and became aware of the assessment order passed by the AO only after receipt of notice from Income Tax department

:-3-: ITA. No:2614/Chny/2026. through e-mail in the last week of October 2024 for payment of outstanding demand for the impugned assessment year. Further, the assessee was approached to Tax Consultant for next course of action, and he sought for complete details like passport copy, employment information, bank details etc. for filing an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Subsequently, the assessee took some time to collate the entire details relating to a very old financial year being 2010- 11 and forwarded to Tax Consultant for filing an appeal and but the Tax Consultant opined to pay 20% of the disputed demand raised vide the assessment order so as to challenge the same before the first appellate authority. Consequently, the assessee approached another consultant Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate in the first week of January 2025 and he immediately filed an appeal before the first appellate authority with a delay of 2801 days and the appeal filed by assessee was dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in limine. In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of AO. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment proceedings effectively.

7.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the appeal was to be filed before the ld.CIT(A) by the assessee within 30 days of the service, but the assessee has filed an appeal with delay of 2801 days. The assessee has been negligent in filing an appeal within the time limit provided and hence prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

8.

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed an exparte order by considering the information available with the department and on appeal the same has been dismissed in limine by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. We note that the assessment order has not been served to the assessee, as the assessee was living in other countries for around a decade

:-4-: ITA. No:2614/Chny/2026. for his employment. Therefore, the assessee was not aware of the assessment order passed by the AO.

9.

In view of the above and to meet the ends of justice we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO and direct the AO to denovo frame the assessment order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

10.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 08th September, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी वर्की ) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (ABY T VARKEY) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) न्याययर्क सदस्य/Judicial Member लेखासदस्य/Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, दिन ांक/Dated, the 08th September 2026 Devadas आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुक्त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. ववभागीय प्रनतननधि/DR DEVADAS Digitally signed by DEVADAS 5. गार्ा फाईल/GF GOPALANACHARY GOPALANACHARY Date: 2026.09.10 17:22:23 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →