GANESAN KRISHNAMOORTHI,SALEM vs. ITO, SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2263/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 August 2026AY 2017-188 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The quantum assessments and penalties were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed due to significant delays, ranging from 2202 to 461 days. The assessee cited reasons including unawareness of assessment orders due to notices going to spam, personal circumstances like caring for a disabled son, and subsequent mental depression after his son's death.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the significant delay in filing appeals without proper inquiry, and whether the original assessments were made without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 270A,Section 271AAC(1)

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: 17.06.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI �ी एबी टी. वक�, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी गगन गोयल, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA. 2261 to 2266/Chny/2026 �नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Ganesan Krishnamoorthi VS Income Tax Officer, 2, Manicka Gounder Street Ward 1(6), Salem Vazhapadi, Salem, Valapady S.O, Salem, 636115 [PAN: AVIPK 6512 E] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant/Revenue) (��यथ�/Respondent) : अपीलाथ� की ओर से/ Appellant by Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) : ��थ� की ओर से /Respondent by Mr. Chilaka marthi Vijay Raju, Addl CIT : सुनवाईक�तार�ख/Date of Hearing 17.06.2026 घोषणाक�तार�ख /Date of : 06.08.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 23.02.2026 for the Assessment Years (hereinafter referred to as ‘AYs’) 2017-18 & 2018-19.

2.

By passing the impugned orders, Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the actions of the AO passing the quantum assessments and penalty levied

ITA No.2261 to 2266/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 & 2018-19) Ganesan Krishnamoorthi :: 2 :: u/s.270A and 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Act’) for both the AYs. The main grievance of assessee is that Ld.CIT(A) without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal

has refused to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before him from 2202 to 461 days. The details of the captioned appeals are captured in the chart infra :-

Asst. Asst. Order Under Date of filing Hearing notice Ann ITA Delay Year dated section the appeal dated exu Nos. before re CIT(A) in days 2017- 07/12/2019 144 16-01-2026 19-01-2026 No 2261 2202 18 06-02-2026

2017- 13/01/2022 270A 17/01/2026 06/02/2026 No 2262 1435 18

2017- 12/01/2022 271AAC 17/01/2026 06/02/2026 No 2263 1436 18 (1)

2018- 18/03/2024 147 r.w.s 17/01/2026 19-01-2026 No 2264 601 19 144 06-02-2026

2018- 11/09/2024 270A 17/01/2026 06/02/2026 No 2265 463 19

2018- 13/09/2024 271AAC 17/01/2026 06/02/2026 No 2266 461 19 (1)

3.

As noted the main grievance permeating in all the appeals preferred

by the assessee is that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in

ITA No.2261 to 2266/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 & 2018-19) Ganesan Krishnamoorthi :: 3 :: filingof the appeals before him against the respective years passed by the Assessing Officer (AO). Since, the common issue in all these appeals are the same, we take up quantum appeal for AY.2017-18 i.e. ITA No.2261/Chny/2026 as the lead case the result of which will be valid for all other assessment years for simple reason that the delay caused in other appeals are far less than 2202 days.

4.

The Cause for the delay according to assessee is that he wasn’t aware of the actions taken by AO, which led to the delay in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A). Brief facts regarding appeal ITA No.2261/Chny/2026 (quantum appeal for AY 2017-18) is that the assessee is an individual, engaged in running a common service under the name and style of Kalki Studio and Kalki Online Job. The AO received information that the assessee had deposited cash/specified bank notes (SBNs) during demonetization period to the tune of Rs.13,92,750/-, pursuant to it, the AO reopened the assessment and finding no response from the assessee added the entire cash deposits/SBNs u/s.69A of the Act; and finding total credit in the bank to the tune of Rs.1,68,18,733/-, the AO after reducing the amount SBNs treated the balance of Rs.1,54,25,983/- as the sales/turnover and computed the business income at 8% of it and added Rs.12,36,078/-; and thus computed the total taxable income Rs.26,26,830/- by passing assessment order on 07.12.2019 u/s.144 of the Act (best judgment assessment). Pursuant thereto, the assessee

ITA No.2261 to 2266/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 & 2018-19) Ganesan Krishnamoorthi :: 4 :: didn’t file any appeal, but when demand notice was served upon him by the AO dated 01.12.2025 assessee came to know that the AO has made the aforesaid addition against him for AY.2017-18 and on further inquiries he came to know that the AO after passing the quantum assessment order (supra) has passed the penalty order u/s.270A on 13.01.2022 and also penalty 271AAC(1) of the Act. And similar actions were taken by AO for AY 2018-19.

5.

The assessee then immediately preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on 16/17.01.2026, which appeal have been dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) by refusing to condone the delay vide impugned order dated 23.02.2025. The impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) cannot be countenanced for the reason that Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have issued two notices i.e. on 19.01.2016 & 06.02.2026, but, in the said notices he didn’t ask for explanation/supporting documents from the assessee for the cause for the delay of 2202 to 461 days in filing of the appeal before him, even though assessee had given the reason for delay. In such a scenario, if he wasn’t satisfied with the reason given by assessee, then in all fairness ought to have called for explanation from assessee before dismissing six appeals before him. Hence, the impugned order is per se violative of natural justice. Hence the impugned action can’t be sustained.

ITA No.2261 to 2266/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 & 2018-19) Ganesan Krishnamoorthi :: 5 :: 6. The Ld.AR for the assessee with the support of relevant evidences explained the cause for the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). According to the Ld.AR, the assessee’s son Ramji aged 20 years was from birth a disabled boy. He was detected with autism/intellectual disability of 100% and required full time care and attention. The assessment orders for both years were passed in December 2019 without participation on the part of the assessee because it was later found that the notices issued had gone to the spam account and not to the inbox E-mail ID of the assessee. Hence, he was in the dark about the assessment proceedings which led to the passing of ex-parte orders against him in December 2019. And it is common knowledge that India came in the grip of pandemic COVID-19; and since his son was suffering from autism/intellectual 100% disability, more care was needed for him and hence, the assessee being unaware of the passing of the assessment order didn’t prefer any appeal within the stipulated time before the Ld.CIT(A). Meanwhile his son expired on 04.09.2023 and thereafter he was under tremendous mental depression and was constantly undergoing treatment which fact is supported by medical evidence. In December, 2025 to his astonishment he received demand- notice which was served upon him then only he realized that assessment order had been passed against him for AY.2017-18 on 07.12.2019; and on further inquiry, he came to know about all other orders passed

ITA No.2261 to 2266/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 & 2018-19) Ganesan Krishnamoorthi :: 6 :: between 13.01.2022 to 13.09.2024 (supra) and the assessee is noted to have approached the tax-consultant and preferred appeals immediately on 16/17.01.2026, which has been dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) on 23.02.2026. The aforesaid facts are noted to be supported by medical evidences and unique disability ID issued by the Government of India and also by the Government of Tamil Nadu and sworn affidavit filed by the assessee. Having perused the same, we find that there was sufficient reason for cause of delay and note that assessee has been saddled with huge additions and penalties for AY 2017-18 & 2018-19; and the omission not to file appeals cannot be termed as deliberate or intentional, because assessee doesn’t gain any benefit by either not participating during the assessment proceedings or contesting the additions/penalties before the first appellate authority. Hence, considering the overall facts of the case, we are of the view that assessee should be given an opportunity to explain the nature and source of the cash deposits as well as his business income, etc. Hence, for the ends of justice and fair play, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A). Having done so, we find that the AO has framed assessment without hearing the assessee and the reason for the not participating is attributed to non-receipt of notices through electronic mode or by post. Since, assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the Assessing Officer relying the decisions of the

ITA No.2261 to 2266/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 & 2018-19) Ganesan Krishnamoorthi :: 7 :: Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), we restore the assessment back to the file of AO for de nova assessment.

7.

Coming to the ITA No.2262 and 2262/Chny/2026. These appeals are emanating from the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 23.02.2026 which are against the penalties levied u/s.270A/271AAC(1) of the Act for AY.2017-18. Since, we have set aside the quantum assessment for AY.2017-18, the penalty appeals cannot survive on its own and hence they are set aside back to the file of AO and the AO is directed to take action if required after passing the assessment order as directed supra.

8.

Coming to the ITA No.2264/Chny/2026. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(A0 dated 23.02.2026 against the quantum assessment passed by the AO for AY.2018-19. For the aforesaid reason given for AY.2017-18, we condone the delay in filing of appeal before Ld CIT(A), and set aside the impugned order of Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of AO for de nova assessment.

9.

Coming to the ITA Nos.2265 & 2266/Chny/2026. These are penalty appeals preferred by the assessee against the penalties levied u/s.270A/271AAC (1) of the Act for AY.2018-19. Since, we have set aside the quantum assessment for AY.2018-19, the penalty appeals cannot

ITA No.2261 to 2266/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18 & 2018-19) Ganesan Krishnamoorthi :: 8 :: survive on its own and hence they are set aside back to the file of AO and the AO is directed to take action if required after passing the assessment order as directed supra.

10.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are 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 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 YASHVI Digitally signed by YASHVIR SINGH R SINGH Date: 2026.08.12 16:02:07 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →