What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay on payment of costs and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file supporting evidence.

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay of 861 days. The assessee's representative requested a remand to the CIT(A) due to a lack of representation before the lower appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Mudiyappan Stalin, Aduthurai vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 24.08.2026Pronounced: 31.08.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ ए ’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस.आर. रघुनाथा, 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. 3430/Chny/2026 िनधा%रण वष%/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mudiyappan Stalin, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 178, Nadar Street, Melaiyur, Ward -1, Aduthurai – 612 101. Kumbakonam. [PAN: CUYPS-6712-H] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()थ'/Respondent) अपीलाथ' की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. Hitesh, Advocate ()थ' की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 24.08.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.08.2026 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 14.11.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18.

:-2-: ITA No: 3430/Chny/2026

This appeal was filed with a delay of 861 days and the assessee

filed petition accompanied by notarized affidavit dated 06.06.2026

explaining reasons for the said delay. Upon hearing both the parties and

taking into consideration the length of time of 861 days, we are of the

considered opinion that such delay of 861 days shall be condoned on a

condition of payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- in favour of the Tamil Nadu

State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within

30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

On merits, the ld.AR, Hitesh, Advocate, prayed to remand the

matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) as there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. He submits that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the

appeal of the assessee for non-compliance and drew our attention to the

para no.5 of the impugned order.

The ld.DR, Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl.CIT, reported no objection in

remanding the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A).

Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order

particularly para no.3, we note that the ld.CIT(A) has given four

:-3-: ITA No: 3430/Chny/2026

opportunities by way of notices intimating the date of hearings. Further, we find no reply or whatsoever offered by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) in response to said four notices. Therefore, it is clear there was no representation whatsoever by relevant documents/evidences before the ld.CIT(A). Considering the same, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for his fresh consideration. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of his case. Thus, order of the ld.CIT(A) is set aside and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 31st August, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 31.08.2026 JPV 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

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.09.01 15:27:14 +05'30'

MUDIYAPPAN STALIN,ADUTHURAI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KUMBAKONAM

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments