KARUNAKARAN MAGESH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TIRUVANNAMALAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1289/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 June 2026AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of this delay without adjudicating the merits of the case. The assessee's income was initially assessed at Rs. 4,93,171, but was later enhanced to Rs. 56,24,895 in reassessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficient cause for condonation, and whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on this ground without considering the merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 249(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: MS. PADMAVATHY S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 12.05.2026

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)] dated 08.01.2025 for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. In the instant appeals, the registry has noted the delay of 415 days in filing the captioned appeal. We have gone through the condonation petition along with affidavit filed, we find that the reasons given by the assessee are sufficient cause for delay in filing

ITA No 1289/Chny/2026 (AY 2014-15) Karunakaran Magesh Vs ITO, W 1 :: 2 :: the captioned appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 18.11.2014 declaring a total income of Rs.4,93,171/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was completed on 31.12.2016 determining the total income at Rs.28,26,670/-.

On verification of records, the Assessing Officer noticed that:

(i) Though the property was originally purchased in the year 2002, the assessee became owner of the property by virtue of a settlement deed dated 24.10.2013. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee was not entitled to claim indexation benefit from the year 2002 and the indexed cost adopted by the assessee at Rs.4,54,316/- was not allowable. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.2,38,044/- was proposed for addition.

(ii) The assessee had claimed development expenses of Rs.15,02,300/- and indexed the same to Rs.25,60,181/-. According to the Assessing Officer, no evidence was furnished in support of such expenditure and therefore the claim was liable to be disallowed.

Based on the above observations, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. After obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, notice u/s. 148 dated 04.01.2019 was issued and served on the assessee. Thereafter,

ITA No 1289/Chny/2026 (AY 2014-15) Karunakaran Magesh Vs ITO, W 1 :: 3 :: show-cause notice dated 25.12.2019 was also issued calling for details. Since there was no compliance from the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the reassessment and made an addition of Rs.27,98,225/-.

The income was thus determined as under:

Particulars Amount (Rs.) Returned Income 4,93,171 Addition made in assessment u/s.143(3) 23,33,499 Further addition in reassessment 27,98,225 Assessed Income 56,24,895

4.

Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee, inter alia, contended that the assessment was completed ex parte without affording adequate opportunity of hearing and also sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal. However, the ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 08.01.2025, dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground that the appeal was not filed within the period prescribed u/s. 249(2) of the Act and declined to entertain the same.

5.

Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was neither deliberate nor intentional and that sufficient cause existed for the delay. It was further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have adopted a liberal approach while considering the reasons for condonation of delay and should have decided the appeal on merits. The assessee prayed that the delay

ITA No 1289/Chny/2026 (AY 2014-15) Karunakaran Magesh Vs ITO, W 1 :: 4 :: may be condoned and the matter restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

6.

Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee failed to file the appeal within the prescribed period and therefore the ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal.

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground of delay in filing the appeal and did not adjudicate the issues raised by the assessee on merits. It is a settled principle of law that the expression “sufficient cause” occurring in the provisions relating to condonation of delay should receive a liberal and justice-oriented interpretation. The Courts have consistently held that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations and that, unless the delay is shown to be deliberate, mala fide or attributable to gross negligence, the litigant should ordinarily be afforded an opportunity of being heard on merits.

8.

In the present case, we find that the assessee has challenged substantial additions made by the Assessing Officer in the reassessment proceedings. The ld. CIT(A), instead of examining the controversy on merits, dismissed the appeal at the threshold on account of delay. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in order to advance the cause of substantial justice, we are of the considered view that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be condoned.

ITA No 1289/Chny/2026 (AY 2014-15) Karunakaran Magesh Vs ITO, W 1 :: 5 :: 9. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A), and restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and furnish all relevant details and evidences as may be called for by the ld. CIT(A).

10.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 04th day of June 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (प�ावती एस) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (PADMAVATHY S) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद$य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %या�यक सद$य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

चे%नई/Chennai, 'दनांक/Dated: 04th June, 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS

आदेश क� ��त(ल)प अ*े)षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ&/Appellant 2. '(थ&/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु)/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय'ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड,फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →