M/S. RESULTS INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORP. WARD-5(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 667/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, as the assessee's explanation for the delay remained uncontroverted. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 99 days, citing preoccupation with company land and professional matters. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. The assessee is an investment company whose income from fixed deposits was treated as business income in previous years.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without condoning it, and whether the assessee's explanation for the delay constituted sufficient cause.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 142(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI BENCHES “A” :: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

For Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure – JCIT
Hearing: 16/04/2026Pronounced: 13/05/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCHES “A” :: CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.667/CHNY/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s.Results Investments Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 480, Khivraj Complex, Second Corporate Ward-5(3), Floor, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. PAN: AACCR8029F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Mr.K.Ramkrishnan – FCA Revenue by Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure – JCIT Date of hearing 16/04/2026 Date of pronouncement 13/05/2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], Delhi dated 09.01.2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2018-19.

2.

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal :

“1. The order of the CIT(A) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant is an investment company and returns from such investments would be assessable as "business income". One of the prime modes of investments of the appellant company is in Fixed Deposits and income from fixed deposits has been and is the major income of the appellant in all the years. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in appellant's case, scrutiny assessments have been completed in various years, wherein the appellant had similar revenue streams only, viz., interest income from fixed deposits and that the department has accepted, in all these years, that the income of the appellant is in the nature of business income only. 4. The CIT(A) erred in not considering relief granted by the ITAT in ITA No. 399/Chny/2022 and ITA No. 400/Chny/2022 dt. 13.04.2023 in appellant's own case while passing the order on the present appeal. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in stating that no active investment was undertaken by the appellant in the current year. The appellant, being fundamentally an investment company, the interest income continues to arise from genuine investment activity in earlier. years. Mere lack of active investment in the current year cannot override the substance of the appellant's business and income should be assessed based on its true character, not its temporary form. 6. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act. It is engaged in the business of investments. The Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2018-19 was filed on 29.09.2018 declaring income of Rs.92,50,120/- for the A.Y.2018-19. The said return of income was furnished by the CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act on 16.10.2019. There was no scrutiny assessment. However, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that the interest income earned on deposits with the banks of Rs.2,28,70,381/- is assessable under head “Income from Other Sources, but not under “Business Income” and no expenses can be allowed. Accordingly, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer formed the opinion that the income got escaped assessment from tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s.148 was issued on 05.04.2023 after duly complying with the procedure laid down u/s.148A of the Act. In response to notice u/s.148, the appellant filed the return of income disclosing same income as shown in original return of income. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the e-Assessment Unit of the Department (hereinafter called ‘AO’) ex-parte vide order dated 09.10.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. While doing so, the Assessing Officer brought to tax the interest earned on the fixed deposits of Rs.2,28,70,381/- and Other Income of Rs.10,74,894/- for the failure of the appellant to respond to notice u/s.142(1) of the Act.

4.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 99 days. However, ld.CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine.

5.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The ld.Counsel submits that the ld.CIT(A) ought not have dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. Admittedly, the appellant filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay. The appellant had explained that the delay had occurred due to the reason that as the appellant was preoccupied with appellant company land matters and other professional matter for which he had performed continuous travelling which made the appellant not to file the appeal within the stipulated time. The averments made in the affidavit remain uncontroverted by the learned Sr.DR.

6.

On the other hand, ld.Sr.DR vehemently opposed the above submissions.

7.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the ld.CIT(A)

was justified in dismissing the appeal on the grounds of delay by refusing the condonation of delay. Admittedly, there is a delay of 99 days in presenting the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The appellant filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of the fact that the appellant was preoccupied with appellant company land matters and other professional matter for which he had performed continuous travelling which made the appellant not to file the appeal within the stipulated time. However, ld.CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay by stating that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay. On careful perusal of the findings of ld.CIT(A), it would be clear that the ld.CIT(A) had not given findings as to how the explanation offered by the appellant for delay does not constitute a reasonable cause. The averments made in the affidavit remain uncontroverted by the learned Sr.DR.

8.

In M.Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V.Laxmi Narain Rao AIR 1973 SC 627, it was held that an uncontroverted affidavit shall be taken as an affidavit on fact. The averments made in the Affidavit seeking the condonation of delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A), remain uncontroverted by the learned ld.CIT(A). In the absence of any material to the contrary, the averments made in the affidavit cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that the ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits. In the circumstances, we direct ld.CIT(A) to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

9.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; �दनांक / Dated : 13th May, 2026 SGR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध,आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “ए” ब�च, 4. चे�नई/ DR, ITAT Chennai. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →