What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s refusal to condone the delay, especially with supporting medical documents, was not sustainable. The tribunal also noted the AO's failure to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 82-day delay, which the assessee attributed to hospitalization. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay without examining the merits. The AO had also passed an assessment order without giving proper opportunity to the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal without considering the merits and supporting evidence. Whether the AO provided a proper opportunity to the assessee before passing the assessment order.

Ulaganathan Porko vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

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

Hearing: 11.05.2026Pronounced: 07.07.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)’, Delhi, dated 28.01.2026 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as “AY”) 2020-21.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee drew our attention to the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and pointed out that the Ld.CIT(A)

ITA Nos.1379/Chny/2026 (AY.2020-21) Ulaganathan Porko :: 2 :: without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee has refused to condone the delay of 82 days and has passed the impugned order dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The assessee also explained the reason for the delay being hospitalized and submitted the medical records to substantiate the same. Therefore, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the delay. Hence, prayed for one more opportunity before the lower authorities and pointed out that the AO also passed the assessment order without giving proper opportunity to assessee. Hence, prayed for one more opportunity before the AO.

Per contra, Ld.DR does not want us to give one more innings to the assessee.

Heard both parties and perused the records. It is noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex parte order without going into the merits of the case by refusing to condone the delay of 82 days in filing of the appeal before him. The reason for the delay has been attributed to the hospitalization of the assessee, which fact is discernible from the medical documents. In such a scenario, the action of the Ld.CIT(A) refusing to condone the delay cannot be countenanced. Hence, we set aside the same. Having said so, we also notice that the AO has made an addition of more than Rs.13 Crores, without giving proper opportunity to the

ITA Nos.1379/Chny/2026 (AY.2020-21) Ulaganathan Porko :: 3 :: assessee. Hence, relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of AO for de nova assessment. The AO is directed to frame assessment order in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 07th day of July, 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (एबी टी. वक�) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 07th July, 2026. YS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प 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: 2026.07.10 12:12:23 +05'30'

ULAGANATHAN PORKO,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-12(1), CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments