ANNAMALAI MADHIVANAN,PONDICHERRY vs. ACIT, PONDICHERRY CIRCLE,, PONDICHERRY
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's counsel's negligence. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity due to peculiar circumstances and in the interest of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a document writer, declared an income of Rs. 6,66,510/-. During a survey, it was found that the assessee received Rs. 1.9 crores in cash from a property sale by their brother. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and added Rs. 2,42,47,490/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) due to counsel's failure to represent the matter properly.
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 (Appeals), Chennai-19 (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 31.05.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
The assessee is an individual and is a document writer by profession. The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2012-13 on 31.03.2013 declaring total income of Rs.6,66,510/-. During the survey conducted in the
ITA No.1266/Chny/2026 Annamalai Madhivanan :- 2 -:
business premises of the assessee, the A.O noticed that assessee's brother Shri A.Tennarassou had sold immovable property during the year under consideration and from the impounded documents it is noticed that the assessee has received certain cash towards the impugned transaction. The assessee confirmed in the sworn statement receipt of Rs. 1.9 crores. The A.O reopened the assessment and since the assessee did not furnish any further details completed the assessment assessing the income Rs.2,42,47,490/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the A.O since the assessee did not respond to the various notices issued by the CIT(A). The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).
There is a delay of 581 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The assessee submitted that the C.A who was managing the proceedings before the income tax authorities failed to take any active steps to represent the case before the lower authorities. It is further stated that only on receipt of the notice of demand dated 14.08.2025 the assessee came to know that the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal. The assessee therefore submitted that the delay is beyond the control of the assessee and is bonafide. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
ITA No.1266/Chny/2026 Annamalai Madhivanan :- 3 -:
We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee is not aware of the income tax proceedings and completely relied on his counsel for handling the tax matters. The Ld. AR further submitted that the counsel of the assessee did not provide proper professional support and therefore the assessee was not aware that the A.O has passed the assessment order. The ld. AR accordingly prayed for one more opportunity. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice to represent the case properly by producing the required details. Accordingly, we remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) with a 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.
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) �याियक सद�य �याियक सद�य / Judicial Member लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 13th May, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S
ITA No.1266/Chny/2026 Annamalai Madhivanan :- 4 -:
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
Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA EJTADA DURGA NARESH NARESH Date: 2026.05.22 12:55:45 +05'30'
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026