What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay subject to a cost deposit, finding the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and passed in violation of natural justice. The assessment was restored to the AO for de novo assessment as the assessee also lacked proper opportunity before the AO.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a significant delay, claiming non-awareness of the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee also contended that they did not receive a proper opportunity before the Assessing Officer (AO).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order is bad in law due to violation of natural justice and lack of proper opportunity before the AO, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Radhakrishna Patta 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 28.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as “AY”) 2013-14.

ITA Nos.1434/Chny/2026 (AY.2013-14) Radhakrishna Patta :: 2 :: 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) deciding the grounds of appeal without hearing the assessing by passing cryptic order. Hence, he pleads that there is a violation of natural justice and therefore, the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is bad in law. Further, according to the Ld.AR the assessee did not get proper opportunity before the AO. Hence, he pleads for one more opportunity before the AO citing the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC).

Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that there is a delay of 286 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal, hence, the same need to be condoned. Further, it was submitted that the assessee didn’t appear before the AO. Hence, assessee cannot now plead violation of natural justice. Hence, the Ld.DR wants us to dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

In his rejoinder, Ld.AR drawing our attention to the affidavit filed explaining the cause of the delay of 286 days in filing of the appeal submitted that the assessee was not aware of the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). Since, the assessee was in the dark, therefore assessee couldn’t file the appeal within the prescribed time. Only when the coercive actions were initiated against the assessee, he came to know about the existence of the impugned order and immediately thereafter filed an

ITA Nos.1434/Chny/2026 (AY.2013-14) Radhakrishna Patta :: 3 :: appeal before this Tribunal. Hence, pleaded for condoning the delay and pleaded for admitting the appeal for hearing. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. Admittedly there is a delay of 286 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal, an affidavit has been filed by the assessee explaining the cause for the delay which is attributed to non-awareness of the existence of the impugned order. Assessee does not gain by not filing of appeal in time. Hence, considering the overall facts of the case and considering contents of the affidavit, we are inclined to condone the delay subject to assessee depositing Rs.10,000/- cost before the 'Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority' at Hon'ble High Court of Madras and submit the proof of deposit of cost before the AO. It is noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without hearing assessee and has not decided the grounds of appeal on merits. The impugned order is cryptic and reiterating the action of the AO. Hence, action of the Ld.CIT(A) cannot be sustained for non application of mind and for violation of natural justice and the CIT(A) had failed to consider the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits. Hence, the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) cannot be sustained and is therefore set aside. Having said so, we also notice that the AO has passed a “best judgment assessment” u/s.144 of the Act, without hearing the assessee. Considering the overall facts, we find that assessee did not get proper opportunity before the AO. Hence, relying on the decision of the

ITA Nos.1434/Chny/2026 (AY.2013-14) Radhakrishna Patta :: 4 :: Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box (supra), we restore the assessment back to the file of the AO for de nova assessment. The Ld.AR undertakes to file relevant documents and written submissions as called for by the AO and the AO to pass 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

YASHVI Digitally signed by YASHVIR R SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.07.10 12:14:57 +05'30'

RADHAKRISHNA PATTA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP. CIRCLE-7(1), CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments