RAVICHANDRAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-3(1), CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ डी ’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी इंटूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद एवं �ी एस.एस. िव#ने% रिव, �ाियक सद के सम& । Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1313 & 2688/Chny/2026 िनधा(रण वष(/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ravichandran, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.5, New Street, Non-Corporate Ward 3(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 034. [PAN: AKMPR-9134-Q] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-थ+/Respondent) अपीलाथ+ की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. Arjun Raj, Advocate ,-थ+ की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. Karthik Dasari, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 06.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 14.07.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 12.09.2025 & 11.09.2025, respectively passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16.

2 ITA Nos. 1313 & 2688/Chny/2026

we proceed to hear the appeals together and pass consolidated order

for the sake of convenience.

assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, delay of 157 days condoned.

the assessee at Rs.12,51,760/- against the returned income of

Rs.5,51,760/-, inter alia, making addition on account of unexplained

investment u/s. 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after “the Act”)

vide its order dated 09.02.2024. The assessee filed an appeal before

the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 172 days. The ld.CIT(A) not satisfied with the explanation offered for condonation of delay dismissed the appeal in limine and also decided the issue against the assessee exparte. We note that the explanation offered by the assessee for condonation of delay is reproduced in page no. 6 of the impugned order. On perusal of

3 ITA Nos. 1313 & 2688/Chny/2026

the same, we note that the assessee primarily stated that the he has

come across this kind of situation first time in life time and was in search

of tax consultant to help in preparing an appeal and submitting the same.

Further, he stated some consultants are doing only compliance work and

they do not take up dispute work. Therefore, finally the assessee got a

tax consultant to prepare an appeal and the said consultant also had

some health issues and there was delay in submitting the appeal.

though the assessee made out a sufficient cause, the ld.CIT(A) did not

satisfy with the said explanation and prayed to condone the said delay

and decide the issue on merits by stating that the assessee is a senior

citizen and it would be a difficult task to manage tax appeal if this tribunal

remands it to ld.CIT(A) for fresh consideration. Further, he submits that

the assessment is invalid in view of the fresh initiation by issuing notice

u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by limitation and prayed to allow the appeal

of the assessee.

submits that there was no response from the assessee during the course

of 148 proceedings and no compliance whatsoever made by the

4 ITA Nos. 1313 & 2688/Chny/2026

assessee in the first appellate proceedings. He argued vehemently that

the assessee deserves no liberal approach in remanding the matter to

the file of the ld.CIT(A) and prayed to dismiss the same.

of the considered opinion that the submissions of ld.AR in condoning the

delay by ITAT is not acceptable for the reason that the order of the

ld.CIT(A) is not at all justified in adjudicating the issue on merits without

condoning the delay. We find the statutory requirements under sub-

section (3) of section 249 of the Act, which clearly explains that the

ld.CIT(A) may admit the appeal after the expiration of the said period of

30 days, if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not

presenting it within that period, therefore, the legal requirement is that

the ld.CIT(A) has to satisfy with the explanation offered by the assessee

with reference to delay and may admit the appeal for consideration on

merits. Further, sub-section (1) of section 250 of the Act, clearly explains

that the ld.CIT(A) shall fix the day and place for the hearing of the appeal

and shall give notice of the same to the appellant and to the AO against

whose order the appeal is preferred. Thus, statutory scheme for

adjudication of appeals before the first appellate authority is

contemplated u/s. 249 & 250 of the Act, wherein under sub-section (3)

5 ITA Nos. 1313 & 2688/Chny/2026

of 249, the ld.CIT(A) has to admit the appeal to his satisfaction with

reference to the explanation in respect of delay and admit the appeal and

to follow the procedure contemplated u/s. 250 of the Act for adjudication

of issues raised in grounds of appeal.

explanation offered by the assessee in respect of delay. Therefore,

which clearly shows there was no admission of appeal first u/s. 249(3) of

the Act and further, consequently, followed the procedure u/s. 250 of the

Act in deciding the issue on merits exparte of assessee, in our opinion,

is bad under law. Therefore, the appeal requires to be remanded to the

file of the ld.CIT(A), firstly, for his satisfaction with reference to delay and

admission of appeal, thereafter he shall follow the procedure

contemplated u/s. 250 of the Act. Therefore, the arguments of the ld.AR

are not acceptable in requesting us to condone the delay by ITAT and

decide the issue on merits. Thus, we deem it proper to remand the

matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to consider for a fresh consideration of

delay condonation petition and condone the delay, after affording

reasonable opportunity to the assessee to adjudicate the issue on merits.

Therefore, the order of the ld.CIT(A) is not justified and set aside. The

6 ITA Nos. 1313 & 2688/Chny/2026

assessee is liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of his claim. Thus,

grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

purposes.

assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said

delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we

find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really

prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, delay of 96

days condoned.

271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of our decision in remanding the quantum

appeal for the same AY 2015-16 to the file of the ld.CIT(A), we also

remand this matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

Thus, grounds raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7 ITA Nos. 1313 & 2688/Chny/2026

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

Chennai, Dated: 14.07.2026 JPV आदेश की ,ितिलिप अ4ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ+/Appellant, 2.,-थ+/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु5/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय ,ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड( फाईल/GF.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.07.16 14:03:29 +05'30'