SHRI GANESH SUBRAMANIAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-9(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1941/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 August 2026AY 2010-118 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate a reasonable cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold land for Rs. 20,00,000/- when the guideline value was Rs. 41,28,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for Long Term Capital Gains based on the difference. The CIT(A) granted partial relief by allowing indexed cost of acquisition.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was condonable due to a lack of reasonable cause. The secondary issue involved the AO passing an order giving effect to the CIT(A)'s directions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148,Section 147,Section 55A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

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

For Respondent: Mr. Christopher Vasanth, Sr. AR

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: These appeals by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") all dated 27.11.2017 for Assessment Years (AYs) 2009-10 to 2011-12.

2.

The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for the assessment year under consideration. The assessee along with three others had sold land at Pammal Village, Kanchipuram District vide sale deed dated

ITA Nos.1940, 1940 & 1942/Chny/2025 Shri Ganesh Subramaniam :- 2 -: 28.07.2010 for a consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The A.O noticed that the guideline value of the property was Rs. 41,28,000/-. 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 submitted before the AO at the guideline value cannot be adopted since the property is disputed. The A.O made a reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) u/s. 55A of the Act. However, since the appeal was getting time barred, the AO completed the assessment u/s. 147 by making an addition of Rs.9,84,175/- towards Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of the assessee for AY 2011-12. The assessee had made similar sale during AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 where the A.O has made addition of Rs.36,59,695/- for AY 2009-10 and Rs.28,48,590/- for AY 2010-11 towards difference between the guide value and the sale consideration. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave partial relief to the assessee by directing the A.O to allow the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition to the assessee from 01.04.1981. 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. There is a delay of 2715 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit before us stating that the order of the CIT(A) dated 27.11.2017 was received by the assessee on 21.05.2025. The assessee further stated that we had no knowledge of the appellate order till the communication of summons for recovery proceedings was issued whereby the TRO has initiated the recovery proceedings including attempts to auction assessee's family property. The assessee has also stated that despite several efforts taken by the assessee seeking the copy of the order no such order giving effect was given to him. Accordingly, the assessee stated that he has

ITA Nos.1940, 1940 & 1942/Chny/2025 Shri Ganesh Subramaniam :- 3 -: not preferred the appeal before the Tribunal and that the delay may be condoned. The copy of the affidavit is extracted hereunder:

ITA Nos.1940, 1940 & 1942/Chny/2025 Shri Ganesh Subramaniam :- 4 -: 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) during the course of hearing submitted that the following evidences to substantiate that the CIT(A) was served on the assessee and that the assessee has acknowledged the receipt by signing the same. The copy of the relevant documents submitted by the Ld. DR is extracted hereunder:

ITA Nos.1940, 1940 & 1942/Chny/2025 Shri Ganesh Subramaniam :- 5 -:

6.

The Ld. DR also submitted the following evidence to submit that the notice issued by the TRO is dated 22.11.2022 and the response of the assessee dated 30.01.2023:

ITA Nos.1940, 1940 & 1942/Chny/2025 Shri Ganesh Subramaniam

:- 6 -:

ITA Nos.1940, 1940 & 1942/Chny/2025 Shri Ganesh Subramaniam :- 7 -: 7. From the perusal of the above documents, it is clear that the assessee is well aware of the appellate order being passed and that the recovery proceedings were initiated in the year 2022. However, we notice that the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal only on 07.07.2025 with a delay of 2715 days. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the assessee has not substantiated the reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Further the assessee has not brought on record any material to prove that reasons for the delay is bonafide and the claim that the reasons are beyond the control of the assessee is also not well supported. Accordingly we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal and therefore, all the appeals are dismissed on the ground of delay. 8. During the course of hearing, the ld AR could not confirm if any order giving effect has been passed by the AO and therefore we direct the AO to pass the order giving effect as per the directions of the CIT(A) in case the same is not already passed as on the date of this order. Further we hold that our decision herein above does not hinder the liberty of the assessee to prefer appeals against the order giving effect passed by the AO as may be required.

9.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2009-10 to 2011-12 are dismissed. Order pronounced on 05th day of August, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (पदमावती यस) (George George K) (Padmavathy.S) उपा�� / Vice President लेखा सद�य सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य लेखा लेखा लेखा चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 05th August, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA EJTADA DURGA NARESH NARESH Date: 2026.08.10 11:46:28 +05'30'

ITA Nos.1940, 1940 & 1942/Chny/2025 Shri Ganesh Subramaniam :- 8 -: आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 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 →