MRS. MAHITHA REDDY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-7(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2809/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 August 2026AY 2015-167 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the FAA, finding the assessee's reasons to be bona fide. It also noted that both the assessment and appellate proceedings were ex-parte.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a significant delay, citing personal reasons of pursuing a spiritual path and being disconnected from communication. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) had dismissed the appeal due to this delay without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the FAA was justifiable, and whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders should be set aside to allow the assessee an opportunity to present her case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & MS PADMAVATHY S

Hearing: 22.07.2026Pronounced: 03.08.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 13.10.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16.

ITA No.2809/CHNY/2026 - 2 - Mahita Reddy 2. There is a delay of 134 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit, stating therein the reasons for the delay. The reason stated is that, owing to personal circumstances, the assessee had chosen to pursue a spiritual path and had been in a state of penance during the relevant period. As a result, she remained largely disconnected from regular social, professional and electronic modes of communication, with little or no access to her e-mail account, mobile communications or the Income-tax e-filing portal. Consequently, the assessee was unaware of the ex parte appellate order passed by the First Appellate Authority. It has further been explained that only when the assessee's Authorised Representative accessed and reviewed the assessee's e-filing portal, she came to know about the appellate order. Thereafter, the assessee immediately took the necessary steps to obtain legal advice and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal without any further delay. On perusal of the reasons stated, we are of the view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.

ITA No.2809/CHNY/2026 - 3 - Mahita Reddy 3. At the very outset, we notice that First Appellate Authority (FAA) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits. The FAA held that there is a delay of 199 days in filing the appeal before him and there is no reasonable cause for condoning the same. Moreover, the assessment has also been completed on best judgment basis u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act since there was no compliance from the assessee.

4.

The Ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) as well as the non-appearance during the reassessment proceedings was neither wilful nor deliberate. It was contended that the assessee was completely unaware of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO and the consequential assessment order. It was stated that the assessment order was neither received at the assessee's registered e-mail ID nor communicated through any other approved mode of service. It was only during the recovery proceedings, when the jurisdictional AO contacted the assessee telephonically regarding the outstanding tax demand, that the assessee became aware of the reassessment order. The Ld.AR further submitted that, owing to personal circumstances, the

ITA No.2809/CHNY/2026 - 4 - Mahita Reddy assessee had chosen to pursue a spiritual path and had been in a state of penance during the relevant period. Consequently, the assessee remained largely detached from regular social, professional and electronic modes of communication, with little or no access to e-mails, mobile communications or the Income-tax e-filing portal. As a result, the notices issued by the Department during the reassessment proceedings / appellate proceedings could not come to the knowledge of the assessee, which ultimately led to the ex-parte completion of the assessment.

5.

The Ld.AR further pointed out that the appeal before the FAA was dismissed solely for delay, without adjudicating the issues on merits. It was submitted that both the assessment proceedings and the appellate proceedings had culminated in ex-parte orders, thereby depriving the assessee of an effective opportunity to present her case. The Ld.AR, therefore, pleaded that in the interest of substantial justice and equity, the matter may be restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication by granting the assessee one final opportunity to place all the relevant materials and explanations on record. The Ld.AR also undertook that the assessee would fully cooperate with the AO and would duly appear

ITA No.2809/CHNY/2026 - 5 - Mahita Reddy and furnish all necessary details and evidences as and when called upon to do so.

6.

The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the FAA and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was submitted that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

7.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We notice that the FAA dismissed the appeal on the ground that there is no sufficient cause for delay of 199 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has explained that she was unaware of the reassessment proceedings as well as the assessment order, since the same was neither received at his registered e-mail ID nor through any other approved mode of communication. The Ld.AR submitted that, owing to personal circumstances, the assessee had been pursuing a spiritual path and remained in a state of penance, due to which she was largely disconnected from regular social, professional and electronic modes of communication, including access to his e-mail account, mobile phone and the Income-tax e- filing portal. According to the assessee, she came to know of the assessment order only during the course of recovery proceedings

ITA No.2809/CHNY/2026 - 6 - Mahita Reddy when the jurisdictional AO informed her telephonically regarding the outstanding demand. We find the explanation to be bona fide and reasonable. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of 199 days in filing the appeal before the FAA is condoned.

8.

We further notice that both the assessment proceedings before the AO and the appellate proceedings before the FAA were completed ex-parte. The Ld. AR submitted that, owing to personal circumstances, the assessee had been pursuing a spiritual path and remained in a state of penance, the assessee could not effectively participate in the proceedings before the lower authorities. The Ld. AR undertook that he would duly appear and furnish all the necessary details as and when called for. Considering the submissions of the Ld. AR and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the matter ought to be restored to the files of the AO with a condition assessee pays a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Hon'ble High Court of Madras, within one month from the date of receipt of this order and

ITA No.2809/CHNY/2026 - 7 - Mahita Reddy produce proof of such payment before the AO. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and furnish all requisite details and evidences in support of her claim and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

9.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd August,2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (प�मावती एस) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (PADMAVATHY S) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 3rd August, 2026 RSR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Chennai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.08.05 09:43:21 +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 →