RAVI SIVAGAMI,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO, WARD-1, TIRUVANNAMALAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3958/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 August 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's circumstances. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte order without proper opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 505 days, citing health issues and lack of awareness due to a tax practitioner's negligence. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay without proper opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the ex-parte assessment order was passed without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Hearing: 18.06.2026Pronounced: 06.08.2026

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 17.09.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2019-20 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No. 3958/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) Ravi Sivagami :: 2 :: 2. 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) without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal has refused to condone the delay of 505 days in filing of the appeal before him. According to the Ld.AR, the Ld.CIT(A) has ignored to look into the relevant facts leading to the cause for the delay in filing of the appeal. According to the Ld.AR in Form 35 the assessee had merely submitted that due to health problems assessee couldn’t file the appeal on time. However, the Ld.CIT(A) without giving proper opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay has dismissed the appeal of the assessee which is in violation of natural justice.

3.

Be that as it may, the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the cause for the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Having perused the same, we find that the assessee was suffering from COVID related respiratory problems which got escalated after the assessment order was passed in January, 2024. In this regard, it was brought to our notice that assessee is a Tailor by profession and uneducated to understand the nuances of the income tax; and pursuant to the reopening of the assessment, after receiving notice issued by the AO, assessee approached a tax practitioner who filed ITR, but thereafter for reason best known to him, he kept the assessee in the dark due to which assessee wasn’t aware of the existence of the assessment order dated 09.01.2024;

ITA No. 3958/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) Ravi Sivagami :: 3 :: and by the time he came to know about it, he was hospitalized and then he approached the Ld.AR who filed the appeal before Ld CIT(A) with a delay of 505 days. Hence, the assessee pleaded for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A); and also brought to our notice that AO also passed ex parte order making an addition of Rs.10,02,600/- since assessee could not explain the investment made in purchase of immovable property, and given an opportunity, the assessee will furnish all the details before the Assessing Officer (AO). For such a proposition he relied 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.

4.

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

5.

Heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the assessee pursuant to the notice u/s.148 of the Act is noted to have filed the return. The assessee entrusted the matter to a tax practitioner who didn’t respond to the notices issued by the AO which led to the passing of “best judgment assessment” u/s.144 by addition of Rs.10,02,600/- on the ground that the assessee failed to prove the nature and source of the investment for purchase of immovable property by passing assessment order on 09.14.2024. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) has

ITA No. 3958/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) Ravi Sivagami :: 4 :: refused to condone the delay of 505 days in filing the appeal before him. Having taken note of the reasons given in the affidavit for condoning the delay as noted (supra) we are of the view that assessee cannot be blamed for the cause for the delay and hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). However, we note that the AO has passed the order without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Hence, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of AO for de nova assessment, by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company (supra). The assessee is directed to file relevant documents to substantiate the nature and source of investment made for purchase of immovable property to the tune of Rs.10,02,600/- and the AO to frame the assessment in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.

6.

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

Order pronounced on the 06th day of August 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (गगन गोयल) (एबी टी. वक�) (ABY T. VARKEY) (GAGAN GOYAL) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 06th August, 2026. YS

YASHVIR Digitally signed by YASHVIR SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.08.12 15:58:24 +05'30'

ITA No. 3958/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) Ravi Sivagami :: 5 :: 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

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →