SADRAS VENKATESWARAN NARESH RAJ,TIRUVALLUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NON CORP WARD 17(4) CHE, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3184/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 August 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee received income from TCS, Norway, which was not disclosed in the return of income. The Assessing Officer treated this amount as salary income and made an addition. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to delay in filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned to decide the matter on merits. The merits of the additions made by the AO were left open for the CIT(A) to decide.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: GAGAN GOYAL & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 22.07.2026

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. CIT(A)"], dated 10.03.2026, confirming the assessment order passed u/s. 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), for the Assessment Year ("AY") 2016-17.

ITA No 3184/Chny/2026 (AY 2016-17) Sadras Venkateswaran Naresh Raj Vs ITO NCW-17(4) :: 2 :: 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for AY 2016-17 on 08.08.2016, declaring a total income of Rs.5,64,810/-. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had received income of NOK 77,668 (approximately Rs.5,80,895/-) from TCS, Norway, towards dependent personal services. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 29.07.2022. It was observed by the Assessing Officer ("AO") that the assessee had failed to disclose the receipt of Rs.5,80,895/- from TCS, Norway, in the return of income. Thereafter, a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on 18.01.2023. However, the assessee did not furnish any reply. Consequently, the AO treated the amount of Rs.5,80,895/- as the assessee's salary income and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the appeal came to be dismissed in limine on the ground of delay in filing, without adjudicating the issues raised on merits. Now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) deserves to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. The right of appeal is a valuable statutory right and, unless there is deliberate negligence or mala fide conduct, the matter should ordinarily be decided on merits rather than on technical considerations. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned. The impugned order of the CIT(A) is

ITA No 3184/Chny/2026 (AY 2016-17) Sadras Venkateswaran Naresh Raj Vs ITO NCW-17(4) :: 3 :: set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to admit the appeal and dispose of the same afresh on merits, in accordance with law, after affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after considering all submissions and evidence that may be placed on record.

5.

Since the matter is being restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, we express no opinion on the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. All legal and factual issues raised by the parties are left open to be urged before the CIT(A), who shall decide the same independently and in accordance with law.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 05th day of August 2026 in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (गगन गोयल) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (Gagan Goyal) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद)य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद)य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, *दनांक/Dated: 05th August, 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS 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 SANDEEP Digitally signed by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.08.11 17:52:16 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →