THANGADURAI MICHAELRAJ,NILAKOTTAI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DINDIGUL, INCOME TAX OFFICE, DINDIGUL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1488/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 July 2026AY 2015-20164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the assessee with an opportunity to further substantiate the delay, thus violating principles of natural justice. The matter was therefore set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) with a significant delay of 724 and 566 days. The assessee cited chronic illness and hospitalization as reasons for the delay, submitting medical documents. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay, deeming the hospitalization period insufficient.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing appeals without affording the assessee a further opportunity to prove the cause of delay, and if such refusal violated natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 271(1)(c),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 12.05.2026Pronounced: 09.07.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These appeals are 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 13.01.2026 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY‘) 2015-16 confirming the quantum assessment passed u/s. 147/144 and penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred as ‘Act’) respectively.

ITA Nos 1488 & 1489/Chny/2026(AY 2015-16) Thangadurai Michaelraj :: 2 :: 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee drawing our attention to the impugned orders submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) without going into the merits of the grounds of the appeal raised by the assessee in the respective appeals has held the appeals to be not maintenable by refusing to condone the delay in filing of the appeals before him of 724 days and 566 days respectively. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee had explained the reasons for the delay by bringing to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A) that assessee was suffering from chronic illness which prevented him from filing of the appeals and had furnished certain medical documents including hospitalization. The Ld.CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay by observing that the hospitalization period was only for few days and hence he held it to be not sufficient to condone the delay. According to Ld.AR, if the Ld.CIT(A) was not satisfied with the documents filed by the assessee, it was incumbent upon him to have given an opportunity to the assessee to file relevant documents to substantiate the delay caused. Hence, there is a violation of natural justice and pleads for condoning the delay or remit it back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to re-hear the application for condoning the delay by giving another opportunity to the assessee.

3.

Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has considered the application for condoning the delay of 724 days and 566 days in filing of the appeal before him and has passed an order which does not require any interference from our part and therefore prayed that one more innings should not be granted to the assessee.

4.

Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, it is noted that the quantum assessment has been passed by the assessing officer on 23.03.2022 by making an addition of Rs.1,16,35,700 by framing the assessment on 23.03.2022. Thereafter, the AO is noted to

ITA Nos 1488 & 1489/Chny/2026(AY 2015-16) Thangadurai Michaelraj :: 3 :: have levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act to the tune of Rs.39,54,974 by passing the penalty order on 07.09.2022. The assessee is noted to have filed an appeal against the quantum assessment on 23.03.2022 against both these orders with a delay of 724 days and 566 days respectively.

5.

The assessee before us explained the delay by stating, inter-alia, that he was suffering from medical illness which prevented him from filing the appeal on time and also filed certain medical documents including his hospitalization. The Ld. CIT(A) is noted to have gone through the medical record of hospitalization and noted that assessee was hospitalized only for a brief period of few days and hence he was of the view that the cause for delay could not be satisfactorily explained by the assessee. The plea of the assessee is that, in case, if the Ld.CIT(A) was not convinced with the cause for the delay (medical illness), then he was bound to call for explanation of ask assessee to file further evidence, which action he has omitted to do and such omission tantamount to violation of natural justice. Be that as it may be, it is noted that the AO added the entire cash deposit u/s 69A to the tune of Rs.1,16,35,700 and also levied penalty by order dated 07.09.2022 to the tune of Rs.39,54,974 and the delay in filing of appeal is attributed to medical illness and assessee filed certain documents to substantiate it. If the Ld.CIT(A) was not satisfied with the medical record submitted by the assessee, then in all farness, assessee ought to have been given one more opportunity to prove the couse of delay. Having not done so, in the fact of the case as noted (supra), there is violation of natural justice. Hence, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee in this regard. Therefore, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeals along with application for condonation of delay of 724 days and 566 days respectively before the Ld.CIT(A) and direct him to consider it again in

ITA Nos 1488 & 1489/Chny/2026(AY 2015-16) Thangadurai Michaelraj :: 4 :: accordance with law after hearing the assessee. The assessee is at liberty to file medical records / relevant documents to substantiate the cause for the delay and the Ld.CIT(A) to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 09th day of July 2026, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वक�) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (ABY T. VARKEY) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�ई/Chennai, िदनांक/Dated: 09th July 2026. KB आदेश की �ितिलिप 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

Digitally signed YASHVI by YASHVIR SINGH R SINGH Date: 2026.07.20 12:56:56 +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 →