What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal found that the AO passed the assessment order without giving a proper opportunity to the assessee and restored the assessment back to the AO for de novo assessment.

The assessee, a farmer/housewife, failed to respond to several notices from the AO due to internet glitches and spam emails, leading to an ex-parte assessment order. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for being filed with a 98-day delay, which the CIT(A) refused to condone.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned and whether the assessee was provided with a proper opportunity by the AO.

Ravichandran Rajamuni… vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Hearing: 14.07.2026Pronounced: 20.08.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 30.12.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2022-23 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee drawing our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has

ITA No. 1149/Chny/2026 (AY 2022-23) Ravichandran Rajamuni :: 2 :: not decided the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits rather he has refused to condone the delay of 98 days in filing of the appeal before him. Explaining the delay, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee a farmer/housewife was not aware of the existence of the assessment order dated 12.03.2024 and hence, the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). According to the Ld. AR, even the AO has passed an ex parte order qua the assessee by noticing that assessee had replied only once on 05.10.2023. Further, he brought to our notice that the AO alleging that the property sold was non-agricultural land has added the entire sale consideration of Rs.1.40 crores by treating it as short-term capital gains because (i) the assessee didn’t file the copy of the sale deed (ii) linked purchase documents, (iii) information with regard to the cost of acquisition of the sold properties. According to the Ld. AR, the assessee could not reply because of the glitches in the internet and later found that the notice issued by the AO has gone to the spam account of the assessee because of which assessee could not respond. He pleaded for one more opportunity before the AO relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216.

Per contra, the Ld. DR does not want us to give one more innings to the assessee.

ITA No. 1149/Chny/2026 (AY 2022-23) Ravichandran Rajamuni :: 3 :: 4. Heard both parties and perused the records. The assessee is an individual who had filed her ITR for the relevant year on 25.06.2022 declaring total income of Rs.5,06,400/-, wherein she has declared exempt income of Rs.1.40 crores [which she received on acquisition of her property by the District Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Office]. Later the ITR was selected for complete scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) on 02.06.2023 and several other notices were issued. But AO noted that assessee only responded to the notice dated 19.09.2023 by a letter dated 05.10.2023 wherein she asserted that the properties sold were agricultural land and hence, consideration received was exempt from tax. The AO is noted to have issued several notices calling for inter alia copies of the sale deed and linked purchase documents and found that the assessee didn’t respond to any of his notices and hence, the AO finding that the assessee didn’t respond to his notices, and failed to file the copies of the sale deed and linked purchase documents, information with regard to the cost of acquisition of the properties sold, held that the property in question was non-agricultural land, and by taking note of the SRO mentioning that the property is non-agricultural land. Hence, the AO added the entire sale consideration amount of Rs.1.40 crores received from the sale of the immovable property as capital gains. Further, according to the AO, since the date of acquisition of the sold properties was unknown, he treated the entire amount received as short-term

ITA No. 1149/Chny/2026 (AY 2022-23) Ravichandran Rajamuni :: 4 :: capital gain and treated the same as income of the assessee in the relevant year under consideration.

Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who found that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 98 days, hence, he refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved the assessee is before us. We don’t countenance the impugned action of the Ld. CIT(A) since it was pointed that the assessee inadvertently has stated in the Form 35 that she received the assessment order on 12th March 2024 whereas it came to her notice only few days before filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Assessee has shown that she only received one notice from the AO dated 19.09.2023 which she replied on 05.10.2023 and thereafter, she didn’t receive the other four (4) notices issued by the AO, which resulted in the AO passing the assessment order making huge addition of Rs.1.40 crores. According to the assessee, the assessee didn’t receive the four notices issued by the AO may be due to the glitches in the internet and hence wasn’t aware of the existence of the assessment order. Therefore, when she came to know about passing of assessment order, she immediately filed the appeal before Ld CIT(A). The assessee is noted to have uploaded the sale deed and other relevant material before the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the

ITA No. 1149/Chny/2026 (AY 2022-23) Ravichandran Rajamuni :: 5 :: overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there was reasonable cause for condoning the delay and therefore, we condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and finding that the AO has passed assessment order without giving proper opportunity/meaningful opportunity to the assessee, we deem it fit to restore the assessment back to the file of AO for de nova assessment. Before us Ld. AR has undertaken to file the relevant documents to substantiate that the properties sold by the assessee were agricultural land and also other documents called for by the AO. The AO to frame assessment in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.

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

Order pronounced on the 20th day of August, 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (गगन गोयल) (एबी टी. वक�) (GAGAN GOYAL) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 20th August, 2026. YS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF YASHV Digitally signed by YASHVIR IR SINGH Date: 2026.09.03 SINGH 15:51:41 -07'00'

RAVICHANDRAN RAJAMUNI,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3, VIRUDHUNAGAR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments