RAM MOHAN,TIRUNELVELI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, TIRUNELVELI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1536/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2026AY 2019-20204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo assessment and to decide the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an agriculturist, failed to file his return of income for AY 2019-20. The AO made additions for cash deposits and foreign remittances, and levied a penalty. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals due to delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and if the matter should be remanded for a fresh assessment and penalty determination.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 69C,Section 271AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 12.05.2026Pronounced: 25.05.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्याययर्क सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1535 & 1536/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ram Mohan, The Income Tax Officer, 1-6-122, Pilaiyar Koil Street, vs. Ward-4, Kattalaikudieruppu Shenco, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 000. [PAN: BCMPR-2980-P] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant)

अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant by : Ms. Vandana Vyas, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12.05.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :

These appeals of the assessee are filed against the separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short ‘ld.CIT(A)’) for the assessment year 2019-20, vide the orders dated 08.01.2026 against the assessment order passed by the AO, NFAC, Delhi, u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 02.03.2024 and the penalty order u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act passed by the AO, NFAC, Delhi, dated 10.09.2024 respectively.

:-2-: ITA. No:1535 & 1536/Chny/2026. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, agriculturist and did not file his return of income for the AY 2019-20. As per the information available with the department, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.12,11,108/- in bank account maintained with Canara Bank and made foreign remittance amounting to Rs.2,49,141/- in bank account maintained with State Bank of India during the assessment year. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act, a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee failed to file the return of income for A.Y.2019-20. Further, the AO issued statutory notices to the assessee and by calling for details. However, the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices. Hence, the AO completed the assessment by passing an exparte order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 02.03.2024 by making the additions of Rs.12,11,108/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and amount of Rs.2,49,141/- as unverified expenditure u/s.69C of the Act and by arriving total income of Rs.14,60,249/-.

3.

Further, the AO after issuing notices to the assessee, levied a penalty of Rs.87,614/- being 10% of tax payable on income by passing a penalty order u/s.271AAC of the Act dated 10.09.2024.

4.

Aggrieved by the orders of the AO, the assessee filed two separate appeals before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 18.08.2025 with a delay in filing the appeals.

5.

At the outset, we observed that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals in limine filed by the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeals by 504 days and 312 days respectively. Aggrieved by the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

6.

The ld.AR for assessee submitted before us that the assessee is an agriculturist who is not a technically savvy person, who did not access his

:-3-: ITA. No:1535 & 1536/Chny/2026. emails often and hence the assessee was unaware of the hearing notices and assessment order issued by the Income Tax Department during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessee could not participate in the assessment proceedings and also could not file the appeals before the first appellate authority within stipulated time limit. Therefore, ld.AR prayed for one more opportunity to be provided to the assessee to represent his case before the ld.CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment proceedings effectively.

7.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the appeal was to be filed before the ld.CIT(A) by the assessee within 30 days of the service, but the assessee has filed these appeals with delay of 504 days and 312 days respectively. The assessee has been negligent in filing the appeals within the time limit provided and hence prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

8.

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed exparte orders by considering the information available with the department and on appeal the same have been dismissed in limine by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to delay in filing the appeals before the first appellate authority. Since the assessee has failed to participate before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld.CIT(A), we levy the cost of Rs.5000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and the assessee shall satisfy the payment of cost before the authorities.

9.

Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it fit to give one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeals before ld.CIT(A) as the assessee had filed the condonation of delay in his form 35 itself

:-4-: ITA. No:1535 & 1536/Chny/2026. and hence, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO and direct the AO to denovo frame the assessment order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

10.

Since the order in quantum appeal in ITA No.1535/Chny/2026 (supra) has been set aside and remitted back to the file of AO, the consequential penalty order passed u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act dated 10.09.2024, which is dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) is likewise hereby set aside and remitted back to the file of AO to decide the issue along with the quantum appeal.

11.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th May, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी वर्की ) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (ABY T VARKEY) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) न्याययर्क सदस्य/Judicial Member लेखासदस्य/Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, दिन ांक/Dated, the 25th May 2026 Devadas आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुक्त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. ववभागीय प्रनतननधि/DR 5. गार्ा फाईल/GF DEVADAS Digitally signed by DEVADAS GOPALANACHARY GOPALANACHARY Date: 2026.05.27 10:33:08 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →