PRABHU BALAMBIGAI,TIRUVALLUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 TIRUVALLUR, THIRUVALLUR

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI �ी एबी टी. वक�, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी गगन गोयल, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA. 2180/Chny/2026 �नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Prabhu Balambigai VS Income Tax Officer, 156A, Durgai Amman Koil Street Ward 1, Tiruvallur NS Nagar, Thanipoondi B.O, Nemalur, Tiruvallur, Thiruvallur 601202 [PAN: CRGPB 5932 H] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant/Revenue) (��यथ�/Respondent) : अपीलाथ� की ओर से/ Appellant by Mr. S. Pratheek, CA : ��थ� की ओर से /Respondent by Mr. Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju, Addl CIT : सुनवाईक�तार�ख/Date of Hearing 17.06.2026 : घोषणाक�तार�ख /Date of 22.07.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 12.02.2026 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2020-21. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, but dismissed the

ITA No.2180/Chny/2026 (AY 2020-21) Prabhu Balambigai :: 2 :: appeal by refusing to condone the delay of 90 days in filing of the appeal before him. 3. We don’t countenance the action of the Ld.CIT(A). We find the assessee has filed copy of the condonation application along with evidences to show that assessee was suffering from acute respiratory disorder and hence was advised bed rest by the doctor copy of the ibid prescription is taken note. Hence, we condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore, set aside the impugned order of the first appellate authority. Having condoned the delay, we find that the AO has passed the assessment order without hearing the assessee and has made an addition of Rs.3,36,45,791/-. Hence, relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216, we restore the assessment back to the file of AO for de nova assessment. The assessee has undertaken to file all the relevant documents/written submissions and participate in the proceedings. Then the AO to frame assessment afresh after hearing the assessee and in accordance to law. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on the 22nd day of July, 2026, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (गगन गोयल) (एबी टी. वक�) (ABY T. VARKEY) (GAGAN GOYAL) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 22nd July, 2026. YS Digitally signed YASHVI by YASHVIR SINGH R SINGH Date: 2026.08.04 11:32:14 +05'30'

ITA No.2180/Chny/2026 (AY 2020-21) Prabhu Balambigai :: 3 :: 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