AROKYASAMY RATHINAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2),, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an opportunity to substantiate their claim.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay. The assessee claimed the delay was due to medical issues and a wrong email ID being used for communication by the lower appellate authority.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable and if the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND MS. PADMAVATHY.S
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), Chennai-20 (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 23.07.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.34,30,430/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The A.O completed the assessment by making a disallowance u/s.
ITA No.1060/Chny/2026 Arokyasamy Rathinam :- 2 -:
57 of the Act to the tune of Rs.49,75,759/- towards interest on loans borrowed. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the A.O. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).
There is a delay 117 days in filing the appeal before us and the assessee filed an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay. It is stated in the affidavit that the assessee is a senior citizen and suffering from various medical issues due to which the assessee could not concentrate on the income tax related matters. It is also stated that the delay therefore is not due to any negligence on the part of the assessee and the reasons for the delay is beyond the control of the assessee. 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.
We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee did not appeal before the CIT(A) for the reason that the notice of hearing was sent to wrong email id. The Ld. AR in this regard drew our attention to the email id mentioned in Form-35 and the email IDs to which the CIT(A) has sent various notices of hearing. The Ld. AR accordingly 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
ITA No.1060/Chny/2026 Arokyasamy Rathinam :- 3 -:
assessee to substantiate the claim of deduction u/s. 57 by producing the required details. Accordingly, we remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) with the 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 appellate proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.
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 CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 21st day of April, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (पदमावती यस) (Padmavathy.S) (George George K) उपा�� / Vice President लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य /Accountant Member लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 21st April, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S
ITA No.1060/Chny/2026 Arokyasamy Rathinam :- 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 DURGA NARESH Date: 2026.04.28 NARESH 16:18:59 +05'30'
More judgments on Section 57
- Dattatraya Prakash Wankar, Solapur vs ITO WD-2(3), SolapurITA 2210/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Aurelia Housing Coperative Society Ltd… vs I.T.O., Ward - 49(4), KolkataITA 2198/KOL/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Ramkrishna Bajaj Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle…ITA 66/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Zidni Ilma Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs The ITO, Ward-Exemp, VadodaraITA 914/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Zidni Ilma Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs The ITO, Ward-Exemp, VadodaraITA 913/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026