T.R. MARUTHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTL TAXN WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1934/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 July 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee not being aware of the assessment proceedings. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-resident, purchased a house property and did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer treated the entire consideration as unexplained investment. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a significant delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was bonafide and if the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND MS. PADMAVATHY.S

For Respondent: Mr. Shivalingam, Sr.A.R

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai – 16 (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 18.03.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

2.

The assessee is an individual and is a non-resident living in USA. During the year under consideration, the assessee purchased a house property

ITA No.1934/Chny/2026 TR Maruthi :- 2 -:

from M/s. Indus Alliance Foundations India Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 64,61,780/-. Since the assessee did not file the return of income, the A.O reopened the assessment by issuing of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee filed a response stating that out of the consideration paid Rs. 26,00,000/- was received from parents and an amount of Rs.42,71,950/- was paid through HDFC Bank NRI account out of two wire transfers from USA amounting to USD 69,000. Since the assessee did not furnish any further documentary evidences, the A.O treated the entire consideration as unexplained investment. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay of 193 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

3.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee drew our attention to the email communicating the assessment order which is sent to the ID indusfoundations@gmail.com (page 11 of paper book) to submit that the assessment order was sent to the email ID of the builder and not to the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that on 17.10.2025 the assessee's father received a letter of demand dated 11.10.2025 regarding the outstanding demand by post to the new flat address where the assessee's parents are residing. Accordingly, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not aware of the assessment being completed and came to know of the same only when the demand notice was received by post on 17.10.2025. The Ld. AR therefore submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is not intentional and beyond the control of the assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case, we are of the view that the reasons

ITA No.1934/Chny/2026 TR Maruthi :- 3 -:

for the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) is bonafide. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the claim by producing the required details. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is required to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with appellate proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 10th day of July, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (पदमावती यस) (Padmavathy.S) (George George K) उपा�� / Vice President लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य लेखा लेखा चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 10th July, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S EJTADA Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA NARESH आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: DURGA Date: 2026.07.15 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant NARESH 11:27:12 +05'30' 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →