SURESH PATHARAM,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, NCW-22(6), TAMBARAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's serious cardiac ailments and medical treatment. The Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a revised return of income significantly reducing the declared income. The Assessing Officer assessed the income at a higher figure. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-furnishing of submissions.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: MS. PADMAVATHY.S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
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)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 28.01.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
The assessee is an individual and employed with M/s. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2017-18 on 03.08.2017
ITA No.1252/Chny/2026 Suresh Patharam :- 2 -: declaring total income of Rs.19,22,920/-. The assessee filed a revised return of income on 21.09.2017 revising the income to Rs. 5,86,550/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The A.O called on the assessee to provide the details of the exemptions and deductions claimed in the return of income and also to provide the reason for reduction in the income declared in the revised return of income. The assessee in response filed various details. The A.O after considering the details submitted by the assessee assessed the income at Rs.20,63,698/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal stating that the assessee has not furnished any submissions in support of the grounds of appeal during the appellate proceedings. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).
There is a delay of 337 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The assessee submits that since January, 2025 the assessee is having serious cardiac ailments and was under continuous medial treatment. The assessee further submits that due to deteriorating conditions of his health, the assessee was unable to attend tax matters and could not take steps to file the appeal on time. The assessee also submits that he went to bypass surgery on 17.11.2025 after which he was advised strict rest and limited physical activities. The assessee accordingly submits that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee and is bonafide. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land
ITA No.1252/Chny/2026 Suresh Patharam :- 3 -: Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee was suffering from prolonged illness due to which he could not concentrate on his tax matters. The Ld. AR further submitted that the counsel of the assessee did not provide proper professional support and therefore the assessee could not represent the case properly before the lower authorities. The ld. AR accordingly prayed for one more opportunity. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice to represent the case properly by producing the required details. Accordingly, we remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) with the 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.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 14th day of May, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार िग#र) (पदमावती यस) (Manu Kumar Giri) (Padmavathy.S) लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य / Judicial Member सद�य लेखा लेखा चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 14th May, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S
ITA No.1252/Chny/2026 Suresh Patharam :- 4 -: आदेश क� �ितिल�प 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
EJTADA Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA DURGA NARESH Date: 2026.06.01 NARESH 12:56:37 +05'30'
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026