What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to file documentary evidence.

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 208 days, which was condoned by the tribunal. The assessee's representative argued that the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order for not substantiating claims with documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration with documentary evidence.

Banupriya A, L/H of Mr. Annamalai vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

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

Hearing: 13.05.2026Pronounced: 15.05.2026

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. 1759/Chny/2026 िनधा(रण वष(/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Banupriya A, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Legal Heir of Late. Mr. Annamalai, Non- Corporate Ward-15(1), 2/36, Ponniamman Koil Street, Chennai. Injambakkam, Chennai - 600 041. [PAN: AGTPA-5123-H] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-थ+/Respondent) अपीलाथ+ की ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. Srinithi, Advocate ,-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 15.05.2026 : 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 23.06.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [herein after “CIT(A)] for the assessment year 2013-14.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 208 days. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we

2 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No.1759 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 1759 1759/Chny/ 1759 /Chny/ /Chny/2026 /Chny/ 2026 2026 2026

find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really

prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, delay of

208 days condoned.

The ld.AR, Ms. Srinithi, Advocate, argued that the ld.CIT(A)

confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer [herein after ‘AO’] for not

substantiating the claim with documentary evidences and drew our

attention to the impugned order and all the grounds raised therein.

She prayed to remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for a

fresh consideration as the assessee is ready to file documentary

evidences in support of her claim.

The ld.DR, Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT, reported no objection.

Having heard both the parties and in the interest of justice, we

deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for a

fresh consideration, all documentary evidences in support of all the

claims of the assessee that may be filed and to pass order in

accordance with law. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any,

in support of her claim. The assessee shall make compliance with

the notices without fail. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are

allowed for statistical purposes.

3 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No.1759 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 1759 1759/Chny/ 1759 /Chny/ /Chny/2026 /Chny/ 2026 2026 2026

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

statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 15th May, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 15.05.2026 JPV आदेश की ,ितिलिप अ4ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ+/Appellant, 2.,-थ+/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु5/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय ,ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड( फाईल/GF.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.05.19 16:20:13 +05'30'

BANUPRIYA A, L/H OF MR. ANNAMALAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-15(1), CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments