ARULMIGU SEDAL MARIAMMAN AND A/M PILLAYAR THIRUKOIL,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD,, SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 903/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2026AY 2020-215 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's lack of awareness of the assessment order. The quantum assessment order and consequential penalty orders were set aside and restored to the AO for de-novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) due to delay and ex-parte orders, allegedly because notices were not received. The assessee claimed the assessment order was delivered to a spam account, leading to a 178-day delay in filing the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to non-receipt of notices, and whether ex-parte orders for assessment and penalties are sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAC(1),Section 270A,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 20.04.2026Pronounced: 25.05.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: ITA No.902/Chny/2026 is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)‘), Delhi, dated 21.10.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2020-21 (quantum assessment); and ITA No.903/Chny/2026 is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)NFAC,

ITA Nos.902 to 904/Chny/2026(AY 2020-21) Arulmigu Sedal Mariamman & A/M Pillayarthirukoil :: 2 :: Delhi, dated 12.11.2025 for AY 2020-21 confirming the penalty levied u/s.271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘); & ITA No.904/Chny/2026 is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 12.11.2025 for AY 2020-21 confirming the penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act.

2.

At the outset, the Ld.AR brought to our notice [in respect of the quantum appeal], the Ld.CIT(A) refused to condone the delay of ‘178’ days in filing of appeal before him and dismissed the appeal. Likewise, in respect of the penalty appeal u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act, the Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order finding assessee not responding to his three (3) notices and dismissed the appeal. Similarly, the appeal against the penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act was dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) ex- parte qua assessee citing no response to his three (3) notices.

3.

Assailing the aforesaid impugned actions of the Ld CIT(A), the assessee brought to our notice that it was due to non-receipt of notices during both proceedings (assessment/appellate) which led to the passing of impugned ex parte orders. According to assessee, only at the fag-end of the assessment proceedings, the assessee received show cause notice dated 20.01.2025 only on 24.01.2025 and AO hurriedly passed assessment order u/s 144 on 04.02.2025, since it couldn’t present

ITA Nos.902 to 904/Chny/2026(AY 2020-21) Arulmigu Sedal Mariamman & A/M Pillayarthirukoil :: 3 :: relevant details/documents before the AO which resulted in passing of ex- parte order and hence, pleaded for one more opportunity before the AO relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC). The reason for delay in filing of appeal before Ld CIT(A) was because the assessment order got delivered in spam account, hence assessee was not aware of the existence of the assessment order dated 04.02.2025 which resulted in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of ‘178’ days. According to the assessee, it came to know about the passing of the assessment order only when coercive action was initiated against it. Hence, the assessee pleaded that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay. Hence, prayed for one more opportunity before the AO. And that other penalty orders are off-shoot of the assessment order. Hence pleaded for setting it aside also.

4.

Per contra, Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee.

5.

Heard both the parties. The Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have refused to condone the delay of ‘178’ days in filing of quantum appeal before him. According to the assessee, it was not aware of the existence of assessment order (because the assessment order got delivered in spam account) hence the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld CIT(A). Thus,

ITA Nos.902 to 904/Chny/2026(AY 2020-21) Arulmigu Sedal Mariamman & A/M Pillayarthirukoil :: 4 :: the main plea of the assessee is that since it was in the dark about the assessment order, and participated only at the fag-end as noticed supra, which led to passing of the assessment order wherein addition of ₹1,26,51,467/- was made by the AO. And only when coercive action was taken against assessee, it came to know about the existence of assessment order and immediately filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) which led to delay of ‘178’ days in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). There is no evidence to rebut the assertion made by assessee on the strength of an affidavit. In such a scenario, assessee can’t be faulted for non filing of appeal within the stipulated time. Hence, the delay caused in filing of appeal need to be condoned provided assessee remits a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 90 days of the receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the AO.. Since we note that the assessee has not been properly heard during the course of assessment proceedings, for the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO for de-novo assessment by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC).

ITA Nos.902 to 904/Chny/2026(AY 2020-21) Arulmigu Sedal Mariamman & A/M Pillayarthirukoil :: 5 :: ITA Nos.903 & 904/Chny/2026:

6.

These penalty appeals are noted to be emanating from the ex-parte action of the Ld.CIT(A). And since we have set aside the quantum assessment order, from which, the penalties have been levied by the AO, the penalties levied by the AO cannot survive. In the light of our action supra of setting aside the assessment back to the file of the AO, the penalties levied by the AO also needs to be restored back to the file of the AO for doing necessary action after framing the assessment.

7.

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

Order pronounced on the 25th day of May, 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (इंटूरी रामा राव) (एबी टी. वर्की) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनांक/Dated: 25th May, 2026. KB आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy to: 1. अपीलार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. ववभागीयप्रविविवि/DR 5. गार्डफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 271AAC(1)

All 1,211 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAC(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →