MANOHARAN BALAJI,CHINNAMANUR, THENI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, THENI, INCOME TAX OFFICE, THENI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1770/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2026AY 2019-20203 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for the delay, citing ill-health due to the Corona Pandemic, to be bonafide. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the delay condonation petition and adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order with a delay of 372 days. The CIT(A) rejected the delay condonation petition due to insufficient cause shown by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned based on the reasons provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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. 1770/Chny/2026 िनधा(रण वष(/Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Manohara Balaji, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No. W17, V O C 4th Street, Ward-1, Chinnamanur, Theni -625 531. Theni - 625 515. [PAN: AOYPB0665E] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-थ+/Respondent) अपीलाथ+ की ओर से / Appellant by : None ,-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 18.02.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [herein after “CIT(A)] for the assessment year 2019-20.

2.

We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. The assessee called absent. We

2 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No.1770 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 1770 1770/Chny/ 1770 /Chny/ /Chny/2026 /Chny/ 2026 2026 2026

proceed to hear the ld.DR, Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT, and pass order by

examining the material evidence available on record.

3.

At the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer [herein after ‘AO’]

made addition on account of cash deposits and commission as is evident

from page no. 5 & 6 of the assessment order vide its order dated

25.01.2024 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of the Income Tax Act,

1961 [herein after “Act”], which was challenged before the ld.CIT(A) with

a delay of 372 days. The ld.CIT(A) found the reasons explained by the

assessee not acceptable as the assessee failed to show sufficient cause

for the said delay.

4.

The ld.DR, vehemently opposed the same.

5.

We find the reasons explained by the assessee were reproduced in

para no. 3 of the impugned order, wherein it was stated that due to ill-

health of the assessee, who suffered Corona Pandemic and due to such

circumstances there was a delay of 372 days. We find the reasons

explained by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) are bonafide which really

prevented assessee in filing the appeal in time. Therefore, we deem it

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

3 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No.1770 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 1770 1770/Chny/ 1770 /Chny/ /Chny/2026 /Chny/ 2026 2026 2026

consideration of delay condonation petition, condone the delay and

adjudicate the issues on merits. The assessee shall comply with the

notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) and is liberty to file evidences, if any, in

support of his claim on merits. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are

allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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 16:21:20 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →