MOHAMED IOBAL UMAR FAROOK,MADURAI vs. ACIT, INTT.TAXA., MADURAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ 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.1910/Chn/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mohamed Iqbal Umar Farook, Vs. The ACIT, 56-1, Ansari Nagar 7th Street, INT TAXN Circle, Mahaboob Palayam, Madurai, 625002. 625010, Tamil Nadu. [PAN:ABIPU2837J] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : None ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. Manoj Prakash, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 15.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2026 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 06.02.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2015-16.

2 I.T.A. No.1910/Chny/26

Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), inter alia, making additions under Sections 69 and 69A of the Act and determining the total income at ₹63,24,000/-. We find that the assessee filed a delay condonation petition before the ld. CIT(A), which is reproduced in para No. 2 of the impugned order, wherein it was primarily contended that the assessee filed a Revision Petition under Section 264 of the Act before the CIT (International Taxation), Chennai, and further requested permission to withdraw the said application, intending to file an appeal before the CIT(A) under Section 246A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) found the said explanation not acceptable and held that the assessee failed to make out sufficient cause for the extraordinary delay of 396 days. On a perusal of para No. 2.10 of the impugned order, it is noted that the ld. CIT, vide its order dated 30.06.2025, dismissed the revision petition filed under Section 264 of the Act as withdrawn, whereas the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 19.07.2025, which establishes that the assessee filed the appeal before the first appellate authority immediately after the dismissal of the revision petition filed under Section 264 of the Act as withdrawn. As it appears that the assessee diligently acted upon filing the appeal immediately before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, in our opinion, the delay caused due to the pendency of the revision petition under Section 264 of the Act is to be condoned. Thus, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for his fresh consideration and to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits. We find, on a perusal of the assessment order, that no explanation was offered by the assessee. Therefore, in view of the same, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to issue notice to the assessee, and the assessee shall appear before the ld. CIT(A) without fail. In case the assessee fails to appear before the ld. CIT(A) after receipt of notice, the ld. CIT(A) is directed to dispose of the

3 I.T.A. No.1910/Chny/26

appeal after considering the material evidence on record and pass the order in accordance with law. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on 30th June, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 30.06.2026 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.