JAYAKUMAR GOPALAKRISHNAN,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(4), COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3668/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 September 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, citing natural justice. The Tribunal remitted the issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to provide necessary details.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file an income tax return for AY 2020-21. The AO reopened the assessment and treated bank deposits of Rs. 6,35,72,078/- as income from business. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay of 183 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and whether the assessment should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & MS. PADMAVATHY.S

For Respondent: Mr. K.Jayaganesh, CIT (virtual)

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 11.03.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2022-21.

2.

The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for the year under consideration. The A.O received information that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 67,19,300/- in his bank account. Since the assessee did not file the return of income, the A.O reopened the assessment by

ITA No.3668/Chny/2026 Jayakumar Gopalakrishnan. :- 2 -: issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee neither filed the return of income nor responded to the notices issued by the A.O. The A.O Therefore completed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act treating the entire credits in the bank account amounting to Rs. 6,35,72,078/- as income from business and profession. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay of 183 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine stating that the assessee has not justified the sufficient cause for the delay. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

3.

There is a delay of 29 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

4.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee is not well versed with income tax matters and completely dependent on the tax consultant who did not handle the matter properly and hence the delay. The Ld. AR accordingly prayed that one more opportunity may be given. The Ld. AR gave an undertaking that if the opportunity is given, the assessee would file all the relevant details. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case, we are of the considered view that the there is a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the

ITA No.3668/Chny/2026 Jayakumar Gopalakrishnan. :- 3 -: CIT(A). Hence, in the interest of natural justice, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Considering that the assessee has not appeared before the AO also and that the lower authorities have not examined the impugned issues on merits, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the claim by producing the required details. Accordingly, we remit the impugned issues back to the A.O with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is required to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with the proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

Further, we also levy a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) in the appeal since considerable time and efforts have been spent by the Exchequer and for the reason that the assessee being delinquent before the lower authorities. The same shall be paid by the assessee to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the A.O.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 04th day of September, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वक�) (पदमावती यस) (ABY. T. Varkey) (Padmavathy.S) �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member लेखा सद�य /Accountant Member चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 04th September, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S EJTADA Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA DURGA NARESH Date: 2026.09.08 NARESH 15:47:10 +05'30'

ITA No.3668/Chny/2026 Jayakumar Gopalakrishnan. :- 4 -: आदेश क� ��त�ल�प 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

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →