PALANIVEL KATHIRESAN,TRICHY vs. ITO, WARD 1, VELLORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2151/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 September 2026AY 2020-216 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to accept the assessee's original return and recompute the income accordingly.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an original return and then a revised return with additional deductions. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed these claims due to lack of substantiation. The assessee argued the revised return was filed due to consultant's misguidance and requested the original return be considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the revised return filed due to misguidance should be ignored in favour of the original return. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

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

For Respondent: Ms. Samatha M.Mullamudi, JCIT

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 08.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.

2.

The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for AY 2020-21 on 16.05.2021 declaring total income of Rs.14,30,330/-.

ITA No.2151/Chny/2026 Palanivel Kathiresan :- 2 -:

Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return on 16.05.2021 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,91,520/- claiming certain additional deductions under Chapter-VIA and also loss from house property. The case was selected for scrutiny for the reason that the there has been a deduction in the income of revised return and claim of refund. The AO called on the assessee to furnish the details pertaining to the Chapter-VIA deductions and also the loss from house property. Since the assessee could not substantiate the claim with any supporting documents, the A.O arrived at the total income of the assessee at Rs. 14,62,446/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that the revised return may kindly be ignored and may be treated as null and void. The assessee further prayed that the refund will be repaid and that the original return may be considered for the purpose of assessment. The assessee also submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and due to personal circumstances and due to ill advise of the consultant the entire issue of additional claim under Chapter- VIA has been made. The assessee accordingly prayed that any proceedings against the assessee based on the revised return may kindly be dropped.

3.

There is a delay of 715 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal, where it is stated that:

“It is submitted that the petitioner is a retired employee of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy, and a senior citizen. The petitioner's son, K. Arunkumar, aged 31 years, and the petitioner's wife, K. Vasuki, aged 55 years, passed away in quick succession, on 20.11.2021 and 25.11.2021 respectively, due to COVID-19. This sudden and devastating loss left the petitioner in a state of severe mental distress, from which he was unable to recover for a considerable period. Further, on 07.07.2025, the petitioner met with road accident and had a fall from his two-wheeler and had to undergo surgical suturing on his right palm and the treatment continued till

ITA No.2151/Chny/2026 Palanivel Kathiresan :- 3 -:

early 2026. Due to this reason, petitioner was unable to concentrate on any activity and had not followed up the order of CIT(A) by way of filing the appeal. Later, the auditor reminded the petitioner to file the appeal to the Tribunal for any relief from the demand. Thereafter, the petitioner asked the auditor to help him in this regard. The appellate order was sent to Advocate in Chennai for preparation and filing of appeal. Thus, the appeal was eventually filed on 15.4.2026. The petitioner submits that the delay was neither willful nor wanton but due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The assessee would be put to considerable hardship and injury if the delay is not condoned and the appeal disposed off on merits.”

4.

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.

The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a salaried employee and has filed the original return of income as per Form-16 claiming correct deductions under Chapter-VIA and loss from house property. The assessee was subsequently misguided by the tax consultant who had filed the revised return of the assessee claiming certain additional deductions under Chapter-VIA and has also increased the loss claimed from the house property. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee during the course of assessment came to know of the erroneous claims and immediately requested the AO to ignore the addition claims made in the revised return of income and to treat the revised return as null and void. The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee during the course of assessment

ITA No.2151/Chny/2026 Palanivel Kathiresan :- 4 -:

proceedings has also returned the amount of refund received by him. The Ld. AR therefore submitted that the assessee did not have any malafide intention and has filed the revised return of income purely based on the misguidance of the tax consultant. The Ld. AR accordingly prayed that a direction may be given to the AO to consider the income declared by the assessee in the original return of income since there is no loss to the revenue. The Ld. AR in this regard relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Ramesh Venkataswamy vs. ITO [ITA No.1068/Chny/2024 dated 26.07.20204]. The ld. AR further submitted that the above decision is followed in the subsequent decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Shri Gunapalan Mallinathan vs. ITO [ITA No.665/Chny/2025 dated 13.08.2025].

5.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, vehemently argued that the intention of the assessee is to make a bogus claim of refund and only when the case was selected for scrutiny, the assessee came clean about making erroneous claims. The Ld. DR further argued that the claim of the assessee that he acted purely on misguidance of the tax consultant cannot be accepted since the assessee is well aware that the revised retuned is filed with erroneous claims only for the purpose of claiming refund. Accordingly, the Ld. DR submitted that the order of the lower authorities be upheld.

6.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. We notice that an identical issue has been considered by the

ITA No.2151/Chny/2026 Palanivel Kathiresan :- 5 -:

Coordinate Bench in the case of Ramesh Venkatasamy (supra), where it is held that:

“9. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The scrutiny assessment of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 was carried out by the AO and framed the assessment considering the revised return filed by the Assessee, which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). During the assessment proceedings, the assessee had prayed for ignoring the revised return, since the same had been filed with wrong guidance of the tax advisors and to consider the original return filed u/s.139(1) on 01.01.2020, wherein the total income filed was Rs.20,80,590/-. We note that, the assessee is an individual and having a salary income and filed the original return of Income based on the Form 16 issued by the employer. However, the revised return has been filed by the assessee based on the wrong guidance of the tax advisors and which had been brought to the notice of the AO, during the assessment proceedings and also prayed for considering the original return filed U/s.139(1) for assessment by ignoring the revised return of income filed. Therefore, we do not countenance the action of the lower authorities and hence, we deem it fit to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to accept the original return filed by the assessee and re compute the income in accordance with law and allowed the appeal of the assessee.”

7.

We notice that in the above case, the assessee, an individual deriving salary income, had originally filed the return based on Form-16 and subsequently filed a revised return on the basis of erroneous advice of the tax consultant, making additional claims which were later withdrawn during assessment proceedings. The Coordinate Bench, considering that the assessee had himself brought the error to the notice of the A.O. and had sought consideration of the original return, held that the original return ought to be accepted and the income recomputed accordingly. In the present case also, the assessee had promptly disowned the erroneous claims made in the revised return and had even returned the refund received. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio of the Coordinate Bench, we are of the view that the

ITA No.2151/Chny/2026 Palanivel Kathiresan :- 6 -:

assessee's claim to have the original return considered is to be accepted. We direct the AO accordingly.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 03rd day of September, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वक�) (पदमावती यस) (ABY. T. Varkey) (Padmavathy.S) लेखा सद�य /Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 03rd September, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S EJTADA Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA आदेश क� ��त!ल"प अ#े"षत/Copy to: DURGA NARESH 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant Date: 2026.09.04 NARESH 17:48:38 +05'30' 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →