DURAISAMY BALASUBRAMANIAN,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), TIRUPPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1179/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 April 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and admitted the appeal. The Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the AO to provide the assessee with another opportunity to substantiate their claim by producing necessary details.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a bus driver, did not file his income tax return. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings upon receiving information about the purchase of immovable property. The AO treated a sum as unexplained investment as the assessee's submissions lacked documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine due to delay without condoning it. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present evidence for the investment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND MS. PADMAVATHY.S

Hearing: 22.04.2026Pronounced: 27.04.2026

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 10.11.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20.

2.

The assessee is an individual and working as Bus Driver in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. The assessee did not file return of income for the year under consideration. The A.O received information that the assessee has

ITA No.1179/Chny/2026 Duraisamy Balasubramanian :- 2 -:

purchased immovable property to the tune of Rs. 15,10,000/-. Since the assessee did not file the return of income, the A.O reopened the assessment after passing order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act and by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The A.O called on the assessee to furnish the details for the source of investment. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the A.O held that the submissions of the assessee with regard to the source are not supported by property documentary evidence and accordingly treated a sum of Rs.15,38,193/- (including stamp duty and registration charges) as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). There is a delay of 210 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is a delay of 27 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

4.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee is not well versed with the income tax proceedings and was entirely dependent on the tax consultant. The ld AR submitted that the tax consultant did not handle the tax matters of the assessee properly and hence

ITA No.1179/Chny/2026 Duraisamy Balasubramanian :- 3 -:

the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed for one more opportunity. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the claim by producing the required details. Accordingly we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remit the appeal back to the AO with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is required to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

Further, we also levy a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand only) in the appeal since considerable time and efforts have been spent by the Exchequer and for the reason that the assessee being delinquent before the lower authorities. The same shall be paid by the assessee to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the A.O.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 27th day of April, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (पदमावती यस) (Padmavathy.S) (George George K) उपा�� / Vice President लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 27th April, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S

ITA No.1179/Chny/2026 Duraisamy Balasubramanian :- 4 -:

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 EJTADA DURGA NARESH DURGA Date: 2026.05.05 NARESH 16:55:49 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →