SUBBURAYA CHETTIAR GUNASEKAR,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, KANCHEEPURAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 681/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 June 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Since the CIT(A) had not decided the grounds of appeal on merits, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 94 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte for not condoning the delay, without deciding the grounds on merits. The delay was attributed to the assessee's bona fide assumption that the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO were dropped.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the CIT(A) should decide the appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

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

Hearing: 07.05.2026Pronounced: 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 28.01.2026 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2017-18. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order wherein the Ld.CIT(A) didn’t decide the grounds of appeal on merits, but dismissed the same by refusing to condone the delay of 94 days in filing of the appeal before him. Explaining the delay, the Ld.AR of the assessee

ITA No. 681/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18) Subburaya Chettiar Gunasekaran :: 2 :: brought to our notice that the AO issued a show-cause notice on 20.06.2024 proposing penalty u/s.271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) and pursuant to which, the assessee filed reply objecting to the proposal and praying for dropping of the proposed penalty. Thereafter, there was no action on the part of the AO for five (5) months; hence, assessee was on the bona fide assumption that AO would have dropped the penalty. And only when coercive action was initiated, assessee came to know that the AO had in fact levied penalty u/s.271D on 19.12.2024; and then, immediately filed the appeal on 22.04.2025 with a delay of 94 days. 3. Considering the plea of the assessee and averments made in the affidavit which has not been controverted, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing of appeal before CIT(A); and in such circumstances, finding that Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the ground of appeal on merits, we restore the appeal back to the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the grounds of appeal on merits after hearing the assessee. 4. 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

Digitally signed YASHVI by YASHVIR SINGH R SINGH Date: 2026.07.07 13:15:29 +05'30'

ITA No. 681/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18) Subburaya Chettiar Gunasekaran :: 3 :: 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

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →