RAJESH SWAMINATHAN RAMAKRISHNAN,K.K. NAGAR vs. AO, THOUSAND LIGHTS

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2885/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 August 2026AY 2015-167 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a 75-day delay, as the assessee claimed not to have received notices due to an outdated email ID. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned and whether the ex-parte reassessment order should be set aside.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 139(1),Section 148,Section 250

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: 28.07.2026Pronounced: 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 17.03.2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16.

- 2 - ITA No.2885/CHNY/2026 Rajesh Swaminathan Ramakrishnan 2. At the outset, we note that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 75 days in filing the appeal. The FAA observed that the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay and, consequently, declined to condone the delay of 75 days. Accordingly, without adjudicating the issues raised on merits, the FAA dismissed the appeal in limine.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the FAA explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. It was submitted that the e-mail ID registered with the Income-tax Department was no longer in use and, consequently, the assessee did not receive any notifications or communications issued by the Department. As a result, the assessee remained unaware of the assessment proceedings as well as the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act. The assessee came to know of the assessment order only upon receiving a telephone call from the Assessing Officer regarding the outstanding tax demand. Immediately thereafter, the assessee took prompt steps to obtain the assessment order and file the appeal before the FAA. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s.147 of the Act was also an ex-parte

- 3 - ITA No.2885/CHNY/2026 Rajesh Swaminathan Ramakrishnan order, as the assessee was unaware of the statutory notices issued during the assessment proceedings. He, therefore, contended that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time and that the delay was neither wilful nor deliberate. Accordingly, he prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before the FAA be condoned and the matter be restored to the file of the AO by providing one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case .The Ld.AR undertook that he would duly appear and furnish the necessary details as and when called for.

4.

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

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The appeal filed by the assessee before the FAA was dismissed in limine on account of 75 days delay in filing the appeal without adjudicating the issues on merits. The explanation offered by the assessee is that the e-mail ID registered with the Income-tax Department was no longer in use and, therefore, the statutory notices issued during the assessment

- 4 - ITA No.2885/CHNY/2026 Rajesh Swaminathan Ramakrishnan proceedings as well as the assessment order passed under section 147 of the Act could not be brought to the notice of the assessee. It is the claim of the assessee that he became aware of the assessment order only upon receiving a telephone call from the AO regarding the outstanding tax demand, whereupon immediate steps were taken to file the appeal before the FAA. We further find that the reassessment order passed is also an ex-parte order, as the assessee had no opportunity to participate in the assessment proceedings owing to the reasons explained above. In our considered view, the explanation furnished by the assessee constitutes sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the FAA. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the FAA and set aside the impugned order of the FAA.

6.

It is an admitted position that the reassessment proceedings before the AO were concluded ex-parte on account of the assessee's persistent failure to respond to the statutory notices issued during the course of proceedings. The Ld. AR submitted that the non-participation was neither wilful nor deliberate and prayed that one final opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate his case before the AO. The Ld. AR further undertook

- 5 - ITA No.2885/CHNY/2026 Rajesh Swaminathan Ramakrishnan that the assessee would duly appear before the AO and furnish all the requisite details and evidences as and when called upon to do so.

7.

From the records, we find that the assessee, despite having salary income of Rs.19,38,350/-, had made time deposits aggregating to Rs.85,25,000/- with Karur Vysya Bank and had also earned interest income of Rs.3,19,043/-, but failed to file the return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. Even after the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee did not file the return of income. Further, the assessee failed to participate in the reassessment proceedings, resulting in the AO passing an ex-parte order u/s.147 of the Act. Such repeated disregard of the statutory notices and failure to avail the opportunities afforded by the Revenue authorities cannot be countenanced, and we strongly deprecate the casual and nonchalant attitude exhibited by the assessee in the conduct of the proceedings. Nevertheless, considering the submissions of the Ld. AR and bearing in mind that the object of assessment proceedings is to determine the correct taxable income on the basis of relevant facts and evidence, we are inclined, in the interest of justice and fair play, to afford one final opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the

- 6 - ITA No.2885/CHNY/2026 Rajesh Swaminathan Ramakrishnan impugned orders and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, subject to the condition that the assessee shall pay a cost of ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at the Hon'ble High Court of Madras within one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce proof of such payment before the AO. Upon such compliance, 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 his claim and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

8.

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

- 7 - ITA No.2885/CHNY/2026 Rajesh Swaminathan Ramakrishnan 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 09:49:12 +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 →