M. BALAJI,CHENNAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 879/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2026AY 2016-20174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter to the CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation petition and adjudicate the issues on merits, subject to the assessee paying a cost of ₹5,000/-.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 120 days before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) rejected the delay condonation petition due to the assessee's failure to provide sufficient cause. The assessee also failed to appear before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the additions made by the AO are sustainable on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Hearing: 11.05.2026Pronounced: 29.05.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.879/Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Muthusubramanian Balaji, Vs. The Assessing Officer, A-2 Keerthi's Flat, 2/8 Jethnagar, 3rd Non-Corp Ward 1(2), New cross street, R.A Puram, Chennai- Building, Chennai. 600028. [PAN: AAJPB2265P] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : None ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 11.05.2026 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 19.12.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17.

2.

We find that this appeal was filed on 16.02.2026. Registry ITAT, after scrutiny, issued notice dated 26.03.2026 by RPAD intimating fixing of date of hearing on 16.04.2026. We find on 16.04.2026, appeal is

2 I.T.A. No.861/Chny/26

adjourned to 28.04.2026 on the request of the ld. AR Sri Srinivasan, C.A, through virtual mode. Further, on examination of the order, we find no appearance of the assessee on 28.04.2026 and it was adjourned to 06.05.2026. Further, on 06.05.2026, the appeal was adjourned on the request of Mr. Balaji, CA, through virtual mode to 11.05.2026. We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor application seeking adjournment filed on 11.05.2026. Assessee called absent and we proceed to hear ld. DR taking into account the material available on record.

3.

At the outset, we note that AO determined the income of the assessee at ₹83,23,089 vide its order dated 13.12.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). Assessee challenged the same before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 120 days. Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to substantiate any sufficient cause for the said delay and rejected the delay condonation petition. Admittedly, addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act, which requires assistance and representation on behalf of the assessee, which was not there before the CIT(A), therefore, in the interest of justice, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) to

3 I.T.A. No.861/Chny/26

consider the delay condonation petition and condone the delay with a condition that the assessee shall pay cost ₹5,000/- in favour of Legal Services Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Ld. CIT(A) shall satisfy the payment of cost and proceed to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits. Assessee is at liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 29th May, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (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.

4 I.T.A. No.861/Chny/26

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →