ABDUL AZEES,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TIRUNELVELI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1888/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 July 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be a fit case for remand. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the delay condonation petition and adjudicate the issue on merits, allowing the assessee to file supporting evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to insufficient cause for the delay. The assessee, a school dropout with no knowledge of online filing, faced issues with a frozen bank account, hindering timely appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine due to delay. Whether the assessee's reasons for delay were sufficient to condone it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144(B)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 15.06.2026Pronounced: 13.07.2026

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 & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1888/Chn/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Abdul Azees, Vs. The ITO, 14, K.V Street Shenkottah, Ward 1, Tirunelveli, Vadakarai, Tirunelveli, 627011. Tamil Nadu-627812. [PAN: APRPA2834G] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 15.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 13.07.2026 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 29.09.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2019-20.

2.

At the outset, it is noted that the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the order dated 20.01.2024 passed by the AO under Sections 147 read with Sections 144 and 144(B) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), with a delay of 175 days. The assessee filed a delay condonation petition, which was reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) vide para No. 4.1 of the impugned order. The ld. CIT(A), not

2 I.T.A. No.1888/Chny/26

being satisfied with the said explanation, dismissed the appeal in limine by holding that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause.

3.

Ld. AR Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate, prayed for one more opportunity by remanding the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for his fresh consideration of the delay condonation petition, as the addition made by the AO is huge, which requires adjudication on the basis of relevant documentary evidence. Further, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee is ready to prosecute the case on merits, having all the documentary evidence supporting the claims made by the assessee.

4.

Ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, CIT, opposed the same.

5.

After hearing both the parties, we note that the assessee explained the reasons for the delay before the ld. CIT(A) by stating that he is a school dropout living in a small village, purchasing coconuts from agriculturists, and had filed no return of income. Further, it was explained that the assessee has no knowledge about computers and online filing. The assessee came to know about the filing of the return of income only upon receiving a notice from the IT Department, wherein his bank account was frozen and he was unable to get the bank statement. It was clearly stated that, since he was unable to get the bank statement, he was not in a position to file his appeal in time and prayed before the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay.

6.

Having examined the said explanation, which is reproduced in para No. 4.1 of the impugned order, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for the reason that the assessee had no financial assistance as his bank account was

3 I.T.A. No.1888/Chny/26

frozen by the respondent Revenue for not filing the return of income. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for his consideration of the delay condonation petition and to condone the delay. The ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate the issue on merits. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical 7. purposes.

Order pronounced on 13th July, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 13.07.2026 MM/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.

Digitally signed MANIS by MANISH MISHRA H Date: 2026.07.15 MISHRA 15:51:28 +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 →