CHINNAYA GOUNDER NATARAJ RAVI SHANKAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE RANGE-10(6), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1755/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it. It also decided to remand the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the delay condonation petition for the earlier appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 120 days before the ITAT, which was condoned due to bona fide reasons. The assessee had also filed an earlier appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay of 374 days.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the condonation of delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and the ITAT, considering the circumstances including the COVID period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 13.05.2026Pronounced: 29.05.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी इंटूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद� एवं �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� के सम� । Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1755/Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Chinnaya Gounder Natraj Ravi Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Shankar, Non Corp Range 10(6), Chennai. B-12B, ASTA AVM P V Rajamannar Salai,Kalainar Karunanidhi Nagar,Chennai- 600078.

[PAN: AFDPR8232H] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. Raghunathan, CA ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 13.05.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.05.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.09.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19.

2 I.T.A. No.1755/Chny/26

2.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 120 days. The assessee filed an affidavit accompanied by a petition explaining the reasons. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee are bona fide, which really prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 120 days is condoned.

3.

We find the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 374 days. The assessee filed a delay condonation petition, which is reproduced in page Nos. 3 and 4 of the impugned order. The main reason, as it was explained before the ld. CIT(A), that the assessee was not well-versed with technology and was not aware of the impugned order passed under Section 271(D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). The ld. CIT(A) did not find the said reason as sufficient cause and proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. We find the appeal with penalty under Section 271D of the Act was passed during the COVID period, i.e., 21.10.2020, and since the subject is penalty under Section 271D of the Act, we are of the considered view that, taking into account the COVID pandemic, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for his fresh consideration of delay condonation as to condone the delay. The assessee shall

3 I.T.A. No.1755/Chny/26

represent his case without fail and is at liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on 29th May, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 29.05.2026 MM/- आदेश की �ितिलिप 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.

More judgments on Section 271D

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →