G. MURALIDHAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-17(2),, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause and in the interest of natural justice. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after calling for necessary details.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 879 days. The assessee, a senior citizen, cited health issues and the Covid-19 pandemic as reasons for the delay.
What were the issues?
Whether there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and if the delay should be condoned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: MS. PADMAVATHY.S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
आदेश / O R D E R
PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Hyderabad (in short "FAA") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 12.02.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
The assessee is an individual and was employed with M/s. Jet Air Pvt. Ltd. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 on 30.07.2018 declaring total income of Rs.9,64,230/-. The case was selected for scrutiny
ITA No.1264/Chny/2026 G.Muralidhar :- 2 -:
and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The A.O called on the assessee to furnish details pertaining to cash payments towards credit card purchases explaining the source for the same. The assessee submitted before the A.O that the cash withdrawals are the source for cash payments. The A.O did not accept the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to make an addition of Rs. 6,54,500/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay of 879 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee a senior citizen and underwent cardiac treatment in 2020. The Ld. AR further submitted that due to Covid-19 pandemic and his health conditions, the assessee could not concentrate on the tax matters. The Ld. AR also submitted that if the limitation period as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to be excluded then the delay is not 879 days as considered by the CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ld. AR submitted that there is a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and prayed for one more opportunity. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case and in the interest of natural justice, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the claim by producing the required details. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) with the direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is required to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with appellate proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.
ITA No.1264/Chny/2026 G.Muralidhar :- 3 -:
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 13th day of May, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार िग#र) (पदमावती यस) (Manu Kumar Giri) (Padmavathy.S) लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य / Judicial Member सद�य लेखा लेखा चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 13th May, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S आदेश क� �ितिल�प 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
EJTADA Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA NARESH DURGA Date: 2026.06.01 NARESH 12:07:40 +05'30'
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026