EL SHADAAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHE-C-(105)-1, CHENNAI

The assessee is a firm and filed the return of income for AY 2013-14 on 01.10.2013 declaring total income of Rs.2,41,86,560/-. The assessee subsequently filed revised return on 02.10.2014 declaring total income of Rs.90,01,480/-. The return originally filed by the assessee was processed u/s.

The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that in the original return of income the declared income was not correct and the tax consultant who filed the return of the assessee has erroneously submitted the return with the details that do not pertain to the assessee. The ld AR further submitted that the assessee filed the revised return on 02.10.2014 within the due date u/s.139(5) with the correct details pertaining to the assessee. The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee was under the bonafide belief that since the revised return has been filed the said return would supersede the original return and the errors committed in the original return would automatically get rectified. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee therefore did not file any appeal against the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act since the assessee is not aware that the original return is processed raising a demand. The Ld. AR further submitted that only upon receipt of by demand notice on 17.11.2025, the assessee came to know that there is an outstanding demand raised through intimation and the assessee filed 2 letters before the AO raising the grievance that the revised return need to be considered and the demand be cancelled. The Ld. AR in this regard drew our attention to the letters written by the assessee to cancel the demand which has been rejected by the AO vide letters dated 08.12.2025 and 12.12.2025. The ld. AR submitted that only after receiving the rejection letter the assessee realised that the only remedy available is the appellate remedy and accordingly filed the appeal belatedly before the FAA. Therefore it is submitted that the reasons

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, vehemently opposed condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the FAA stating that ignorance of law is not an excuse and that the assessee should have preferred an appeal against 143(1) of the Act explaining the facts.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. Before us, the assessee filed an affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal in the relevant part of the affidavit is extracted hereunder:

The short issue that arises for our consideration is whether the delay of 4220 days in filing the appeal before the FAA deserves to be condoned. We notice that the original return of income was filed on 01.10.2013 declaring total income of Rs.2,41,86,560/-. It is the consistent case of the assessee that the original return was erroneously filed by the tax consultant by incorporating details which did not pertain to the assessee. We further notice that the assessee filed a revised return on 02.10.2014 within the time prescribed under section 139(5) of the Act declaring the correct total income of Rs.90,01,480/-. According to the assessee, it was under the bona fide belief that the revised return, having been validly filed within the prescribed time, would supersede the original return and consequently the errors committed in the original return would automatically stand rectified. We further notice that the assessee came to know about the outstanding demand only upon receipt of the demand notice dated 17.11.2025. Immediately thereafter, the assessee addressed letters to the A.O requesting that the revised return be taken into consideration and the demand raised pursuant to the processing of the original return be cancelled. These requests came to be rejected by the A.O vide letters dated 08.12.2025 and 12.12.2025. We find that only thereafter the assessee realised that the grievance could be redressed only through the appellate mechanism and accordingly preferred the appeal before the FAA. Thus, the conduct of the assessee demonstrates that upon becoming aware of the demand, it had been diligently pursuing the matter and there is nothing on record to indicate that the delay was deliberate or actuated by any mala fide intention. The Ld. DR has opposed the condonation of delay on the ground that ignorance of law is no excuse and that the assessee ought to have challenged the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act within the prescribed period. There is no dispute with the legal proposition canvassed by

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471) has laid down the following guiding principles while considering an application for condonation of delay:

Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, we find that the explanation offered by the assessee cannot be cannot be disregarded as lacking in bona fides. It is not in dispute that the revised return was

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 07th day of August, 2026 at Chennai.