KRISHNAMOORTHY PERUMAL,TIRUVARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, NAGAPATTINAM

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.1884/Chn/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Krishnamoorthy Perumal, Vs. The ITO, 3/38, Thozhuvanangudi, Elavangargudi, Ward 1, Nagapattinam, Tiruvarur, Tamil Nadu, 611001. 610051. [PAN: AРBPP0124J] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. Manoj Prakash, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 15.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 08.07.2026 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 11.08.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 151 days. The assessee filed an affidavit accompanied by a petition explaining the reasons. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee are bona fide, which

2 I.T.A. No.1884/Chny/26

really prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 151 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, it is noted that the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the assessment order dated 28.03.2022, inter alia, making addition on account of long-term capital gains; however, no compliance was made before the ld. CIT(A), and as such, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed without adjudicating the issues on merits. 4. Ld. AR, Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate, sought remand to the ld. CIT(A) with an undertaking that the assessee shall appear before the ld. CIT(A) without fail. 5. Ld. DR, Mr. Manoj Prakash, JCIT, reported no objection in remanding the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A). 6. Thus, considering the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, as it is evident from paragraph Nos. 4.2.2.2 to 4.2.2.3 of the impugned order that no compliance was made by the assessee and, as such, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the grounds of the assessee for want of documentary evidence. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for his fresh consideration. 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.

3 I.T.A. No.1884/Chny/26

Order pronounced on 8th July, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 08.07.2026 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.

MANIS Digitally signed by MANISH H MISHRA Date: MISHRA 2026.07.14 11:56:09 +05'30'