THANGAVEL SENTHILKUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-3(1), COIMBATORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the delay petition and, if condoned, to examine the merits of the additions made by the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not file an income tax return. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on information of cash deposits and property sale. The assessee failed to respond to notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to an 8-month delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the additions made by the AO should be examined on merits.
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 16.01.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.
ITA No.1277/Chny/2026 Thangavel Senthilkumar :- 2 -:
The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income. The A.O received information that the assessee during the year under consideration has deposited cash into the bank account and has also entered into the transaction of sale of immovable property. Since the assessee did not file the return of income, the A.O reopened the assessment. The assessee neither filed the return of income in response to notice nor filed any further details before the A.O. Accordingly, the A.O completed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act assessing the income at Rs.1,22,61,620/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). There is a delay of 8 months in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).
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 having some family disputes and severe financial problems 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 was not aware that the A.O has passed the assessment order. The ld. AR accordingly prayed for one more opportunity. From the perusal of records, we notice that the assessee has stated the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as part of Form 35 and did not file any separate condonation petition or affidavit explaining the reasons. Considering the facts and circumstances unique to the assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice and fair play. Further, lower authorities have not examined the impugned issue on merits since the assessee did not respond
ITA No.1277/Chny/2026 Thangavel Senthilkumar :- 3 -:
to AO's notices and that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine. We therefore, remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the delay petition and if the delay is condoned also to consider the impugned issue on merits by calling for necessary details as may be required in order to decide the case in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to file affidavit explaining the reason for delay in filing the appeal along with a condonation petition. The assessee further directed to file any further details as may be called for with regard to the impugned additions made by the AO and cooperate with appellate proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. 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 सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य / Judicial Member सद�य लेखा लेखा लेखा चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 14th May, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S 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 DURGA EJTADA DURGA NARESH Date: 2026.06.01 NARESH 12:55:10 +05'30'
ITA No.1277/Chny/2026 Thangavel Senthilkumar
:- 4 -:
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026