NARASIMMA GOUNDER SESHACHALAM,KRISHNAGIRI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KRISHNAGIRI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2033/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 July 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal condoned the delay due to the assessee's genuine health reasons. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to present evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay of 710 days due to health issues. The assessee had remained non-compliant before the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to the assessee's health condition and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO & BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

Hearing: 18.06.2026Pronounced: 28.07.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी इंटूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद एवं �ी एस.एस. िव"ने$ रिव, �ाियक सद के सम% । BEFORE SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2033/Chny/2026 िनधा'रण वष'/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Narasimma Gounder Seshachalam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, K.N.S. Agency Kundarapalli Post, Ward-1, Krishnagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri Post, Krishnagiri. Krishnagiri Dist – 635 001. [PAN: AVBPS-4794-D] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,थ*/Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. Hitesh, Advocate +,थ* की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. S. Manoj Prakash, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 18.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 28.07.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 01.02.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18.

2 ITA No. 2033/Chny/2026

2.

This appeal was filed with a delay of 710 days. The assessee filed

notarized affidavit dated 06.11.2025 along with a petition to condone the

said delay. On perusal of the same, it is noted that the assessee’s health

was not good and he was hospitalized, supporting the copies of hospital

reports were filed before us from page no.1 to 79 of the paper book. On

perusal of the same, we note that the assessee got medical report for

chronic heart failure on 29.11.2024 and from time to time he was

undergoing treatment for the same. The last report dated 06.10.2025

shows that the assessee is 85 years old, was undergoing treatment for

the chronic heart disease. Therefore, in view of the supporting

documents showing the health condition of the assessee, we find the

reasons stated in the affidavit are Bonafide which really prevented

assessee to file appeal in time. Thus, delay of 710 days condoned.

3.

On merits, it is noted that the assessee remained non-compliant

before the AO and ld.CIT(A). The relevant para no.7 of the assessment

order and para no.5 of the impugned order establishes the same. The

ld.AR, Shri. Hitesh, Advocate, prayed for one more opportunity to the

assessee as he is ready to prosecute his case before the AO.

3 ITA No. 2033/Chny/2026

4.

The ld.DR, Shri. S. Manoj Prakash, JCIT, vehemently opposed the

same.

5.

After hearing both the parties and considering the submissions of

the ld.AR and ld.DR, with reference to facts and circumstances of the

case, admittedly there was no assistance before the AO and ld.CIT(A)

as the addition made by the AO u/s. 69 of the Act requires assistance of

the assessee. Since, the ld.AR expressed readiness of assessee to

prosecute his case, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand

the matter to the file of the AO for his fresh consideration. The assessee

is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, the order

of the ld.CIT(A) is set aside and grounds raised by the assessee are

allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

purposes. Order pronounced on 28th July, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

4 ITA No. 2033/Chny/2026

Chennai, Dated: 28.07.2026 JPV आदेश की +ितिलिप अ3ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ*/Appellant, 2.+,थ*/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु4/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय +ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड' फाईल/GF.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.07.30 10:43:24 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →