HELEN DARLY JEYA SUDHARSON,VAZHAVILAI, ATTOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ACIT), NAGERCOIL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's medical condition. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication after calling for necessary details from the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a pawn broker, deposited a large sum into their bank account but did not file an income tax return. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment and treated the deposits as unexplained. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a significant delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to medical reasons and whether the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & MS. PADMAVATHY.S
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)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 17.06.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.
The assessee is an individual and carrying on the business of pawn broker. During the year under consideration, the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.1,98,14,715/- into the bank account. Since the assessee did not file the return of income, the A.O reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee neither filed the return of income in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act nor responded to the subsequent notices issued by the A.O. The A.O therefore treated the entire cash deposits as unexplained and made the addition accordingly. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay of 383 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and 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 assessee filed an affidavit containing the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) which is extracted hereunder:
“1. I am the appellant in the present case and I am fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Assessment Order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2020-21 resulted in a substantial tax demand against me.
1 submit that I was suffering from serious medical ailments and was under continuous medical treatment and supervision during the periods from 31.01.2024 to 30.06.2024 and again from 01.01.2026 to 19.03.2026. During these periods, I was physically and mentally unable to effectively attend to my personal, financial, taxation and legal matters.
Due to my prolonged medical condition and treatment, I was unable to properly monitor and pursue the income tax proceedings and consequently could not file the appeal within the prescribed time limit.
Immediately upon recovery and becoming medically fit to attend my affairs, I took necessary steps and filed the appeal without any further delay. 6. The delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional, deliberate nor due to negligence. The delay occurred solely because of circumstances beyond my control arising from my medical condition. 7. I respectfully submit that I have a good case on merits and if the delay is not condoned, I will suffer irreparable hardship and injustice. 8. I therefore humbly pray that the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of substantial justice.”
The Ld. AR submitted that if given one more opportunity he undertakes to appear before the A.O and submit all the relevant details as may be called for. 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 and fair play to represent the case properly by producing the required details. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remit the impugned issues back to the A.O with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with the proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.
Further, we also levy a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand only) in the appeal since considerable time and efforts have been spent by the Exchequer and for the reason that the assessee being delinquent before the lower authorities. The same shall be paid by the assessee to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the A.O.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 25th day of August, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वक�) (पदमावती यस) (ABY. T. Varkey) (Padmavathy.S) लेखा सद�य /Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 25th August, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S EJTADA Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA DURGA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: NARESH 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant Date: 2026.08.27 NARESH 16:34:37 +05'30' 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026