MAYILSAMY SHANMUGAGANESAN,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NON-CORPORATE WARD 4(1),COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3867/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 August 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the confidential nature of the assessee's business and the need for natural justice. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment and assessed income at Rs. 3,44,18,216/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a 21-day delay without condonation.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned considering the assessee's business and the interest of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & MS. PADMAVATHY.S&

For Respondent: Mr. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal and stay application by the assessee are 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 17.06.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020- 21.

2.

The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income. The A.O noticed that there has been a substantial financial transaction carried out

ITA No.3867/Chny/2026 & SA No.153/Chny/2026 Mayilsamy Shanmuganesan :- 2 -: by the assessee during the year under consideration. Since the assessee did not file the return of income, the A.O reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee did not respond to the various notices issued by the AO and the A.O completed the assessment by assessing the income of Rs.3,44,18,216/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay of 21 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay for the reason that the assessee did not furnish evidences substantiating the reasonable cause for the delay. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

3.

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 engaged in the business of supplying equipments to the Defence, Government of India and therefore the details pertaining to the travel etc. which is the reason for the delay are confidential and could not be shared. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was travelling at the time of passing of order of u/s. 147 of the Act by the AO and therefore could not file the appeal before the CIT(A) within the prescribed time. The Ld. AR also submitted that the counsel of the assessee did not provide proper professional support and therefore the assessee was not properly represented before the AO also. The Ld. AR accordingly prayed for one more opportunity. From the perusal of records, we notice that the assessee has filed the petition for condonation of delay before the CIT(A) which has been rejected for the reason that no supporting evidence is furnished by the assessee. Given the nature of business, the assessee is engaged in, we see merit in the submission that the supporting details could not be furnished due to confidentiality in the line of business the assessee is engaged in.

ITA No.3867/Chny/2026 & SA No.153/Chny/2026 Mayilsamy Shanmuganesan :- 3 -: Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case and in the interest of natural justice, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the claim by producing the required details. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) 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 appellate proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

4.

In view of our decision in the appeal as elaborated herein above, the stay application filed by the assessee has become infructuous. Accordingly the same is dismissed as infructuous.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and S.A of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced on 07th day of August, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (पदमावती यस) (Padmavathy.S) (George George K) उपा�� / Vice President लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य लेखा लेखा चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 07th August, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S Digitally signed by आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: EJTADA DURGA EJTADA DURGA NARESH 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant NARESH Date: 2026.08.10 11:59:37 +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 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →