What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) as the assessee had sufficient cause. The Tribunal also noted that the Ld.CIT(A) had not decided the grounds of appeal on merits and set aside the order.

The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 29 days. The delay was attributed to a misdirection by the computation sheet annexed to the assessment order, which showed a lower payable amount than the actual demand raised later.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the Ld.CIT(A) properly decided the grounds of appeal on merits.

Dinesh Kumar D vs ITO | s.250 | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & MS. PADMAVATHY. S

Hearing: 08.05.2026Pronounced: 29.06.2026

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 (Appeal)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 26.03.2026 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2024-25.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee drawing our attention to the impugned order submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the grounds of appeal on merits to dismiss the appeal by refusing to condone the delay of ‘29’ days in filing of the appeal before him despite the

ITA No. 2321/Chny/2026 (AY 2024-25) Dinesh Kumar D :: 2 :: assessee showing sufficient cause for the delay. Hence, he prayed for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A).

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

Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, it is noted that the assessment order was framed by the assessee on 11.10.2025 and the appeal was preferred by the assessee against the assessment order on 09.12.2025 with a delay 29 days. The assessee has filed the application for condoning the delay before the Ld.CIT(A) which show that assessee was misdirected by the computation sheet annexed along with assessment order which showed that the amount payable by the assessee was only to the tune of Rs.2,32,020/- and hence, assessee paid the same on 03.11.2025 and hence was under the bonafide belief that there was no necessity to litigate further against the assessment order. However, thereafter the assessee received letter from the AO dated 14.11.2025, which raised the demand of Rs.20,49,110/-and hence, the assessee immediately filed the appeal against the assessment order dated 11.10.2025 because of which there was a delay of ‘29’ days in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

Considering the facts narrated (supra), we note that the computation sheet attached with the assessment order shows amount

ITA No. 2321/Chny/2026 (AY 2024-25) Dinesh Kumar D :: 3 :: payable only at Rs.2,36,020/-, and assessee paid it on 03.11.2025. However, then assessee received letter on 14.11.2025, wherein it was shown that the actual demand raised was to the tune of Rs.20,49,110/- , hence assessee is noted to have filed the appeal immediately thereafter. Hence, assessee cannot be faulted for delay caused in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore, we condone the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Having done so, we note that the Ld.CIT(A) hasn’t decided the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in accordance to sub-section 6 of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). Hence, the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) cannot be countenanced and hence we set aside the same and restore the appeal back to his file with a direction to decide the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 29th day of June, 2026, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (प�ावती. एस) (एबी टी. वक�) (PADMAVATHY. S) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 29th June, 2026. YS

YASHVIR Digitally signed by YASHVIR SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.07.07 13:12:11 +05'30'

ITA No. 2321/Chny/2026 (AY 2024-25) Dinesh Kumar D :: 4 :: 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

DINESH KUMAR D,CHENNAI vs. ITO, 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