AAFWAN INVESTMENT CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,PERAMBALUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PERAMBALUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3098/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 July 2026AY 2023-244 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had made various additions. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay and remand the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 49 days. The CIT(A) rejected the delay condonation petition. The assessee argued that the rejection was arbitrary, while the revenue contended that the reasons provided were general and lacked evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the delay condonation petition. Whether the appeal should be adjudicated on merits despite the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 28.07.2026

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.04.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2023-24. 2

2.

At the outset, it is noted that the assessee filed an appeal against

the order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the AO u/s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act with a delay of 49 days, which was rejected by the ld.CIT(A)

by recording his reasons in para no. 2 to 2.10 of the impugned order.

3.

The ld.AR, Shri. Mukesh Jain, CA, submits that the ld.CIT(A)

arbitrarily rejected the delay condonation petition with reference to a small delay of 49 days and prayed to direct the ld.CIT(A) to condone

the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits.

4.

The ld.DR, Ms. Nayani Swapna, CIT, submits that the assessee is a limited company and the reasons explained by the assessee are general in nature requiring no interference from this Tribunal. She

argued no evidences were filed in respect of the reasons explained by the ld.AR to condone the delay of 49 days. She argued that the assessee is expected to file the appeal in time in accordance with law

and the length of delay is not a matter for consideration. She argued

that the assessee is expected to give sufficient cause even for one

day delay and prayed to reject the prayer of the ld.AR.

3

5.

Having heard both the parties, we note that the AO admittedly

made various additions u/s. 68 of the Act, disallowance on account of income from other sources and adhoc addition on account of business

income, which requires assistance of the assessee before the ld.CIT(A), wherein as discussed above, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. Taking into consideration, nature of addition and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file ld.CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay of 49

days and adjudicate the issues on merits. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, 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. (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Chennai, Dated: 28.07.2026 JPV

4 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 VANI JETTY Date: 2026.07.30 10:39:01 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →