RAGHAVENDAR LALITHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-4(6), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1827/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2026AY 2020-215 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay as the assessee failed to provide a sufficient and reasonable cause. Since there was no adjustment made in the intimation under section 143(1), the assessee was not aggrieved by it.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay of 1825 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to a bonafide belief that no remedy was available after the return was processed under section 143(1) and ignorance of the intimation notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Whether the assessee had made out a sufficient cause for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI BENCHES, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE INTURI RAMA RAO & HON’BLE SS VISWANETHRA RAVI

आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], dated 21.01.2026 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2020-21

2.

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. For that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) under section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act) dated 21.01.2026 is erroneous, bad in law, and was passed ignoring the facts and merits of the case.

2.1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal, in limine, without condoning the delay of 1825 days in filing the appeal before him.

2.2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noted that that the assessee cannot be penalized for the mistake of the Tax Consultant in the matter of claiming relief u/s 10(10C) of the Act.

2.3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be prevailed.

3.

For these and other additional grounds that may be adduced before or at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed.”

3.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual deriving income under head “Salaries”. The Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2020-21 was filed on 23.10.2020 disclosing income at Rs.11,21,420/-. The said Return of Income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act by CPC vide intimation dated 11.12.2020 accepting the returned income.

4.

On receipt of the appeal, an appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 1825 days.

5.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. It is submitted that the ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of delay by refusing to condone the delay.

6.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. It is submitted that the ld.CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of delay having regard to the explanation offered before him. It was submitted that during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration, the appellant received Ex gratia compensation from its employer BSNL of Rs.8,09,535/-. In the Return of Income, the appellant claimed exemption only to the extent of Rs.5 lakhs u/s.10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 instead of entire amount.

7.

On the other hand, Learned Sr.DR opposed the above submission and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay.

8.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 1825 days. Admittedly, the appellant had filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that as it was under bonafide belief that once the return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act, no remedy was available and pleading the ignorance of intimation notice. The appellant has not made out a sufficient and reasonable cause for delay and the ld.CIT(A) had rightly refused to condone the delay of 1825 days. Further, we find that there was no adjustment made in the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act to the returned income, therefore, the appellant is not aggrieved by the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act. There were no mistakes committed by CPC while processing the Return of Income.

9.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; �दनांक / Dated : 29th May, 2026 SGR, Sr.PS

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem. 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “डी” ब�च, चे�नई / DR, ITAT Chennai. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.

Digitally signed by GANGADHARA GANGADHARA RAO SALEELA RAO SALEELA Date: 2026.06.03 19:08:12 +05'30'

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →