KARUPPAIYA THANGADHURAI,THENI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, THENI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2896/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 August 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's lack of familiarity with tax matters and communication gaps. The Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the AO to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case properly.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in wholesale vegetable trading, did not file an income tax return. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on information about cash deposits and equity share transactions, ultimately assessing income at Rs. 1,11,56,310/-. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-response.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's delay in filing the appeal and their failure to respond to notices were due to sufficient cause, and whether a further opportunity should be granted to present the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & 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 10.11.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.

2.

The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of wholesale trading of fresh vegetables in rural areas. The assessee did not file the return of income for the year under consideration. The AO received information that

ITA No.2896/Chny/2026 Karuppaiya thangadurai :- 2 -:

during the year under consideration the assessee has made a cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,32,450/- and has also transacted in equity shares for Rs.10,13,238/-. 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 did not file the return of income, and did not respond to any of the notices, the AO passed an order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act assessing the income at Rs. 1,11,56,310/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Since the assessee did not file any reply to the notices issued by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

3.

There is a delay of 107 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed an affidavit in this regard. It is submitted in the condonation petition that the assessee is running a vegetable business in a small town and is not well versed in the income tax matters. It is also submitted that there was a communication gap between the auditor and the assessee due to which the assessee was not aware of the appellate order being passed. Hence, it is submitted that the reason for delay is bonafide and unintentional. 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.2896/Chny/2026 Karuppaiya thangadurai :- 3 -:

4.

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 her 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 could not represent the case properly before the lower authorities. The Ld. AR accordingly prayed for one more opportunity with an undertaking that the assessee would represent the case properly. 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 remit the appeal 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 assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

Further, we also levy a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten 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.

ITA No.2896/Chny/2026 Karuppaiya thangadurai :- 4 -:

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 04th day of August, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/ Sd/ (जॉज� जॉज� के) (पदमावती यस) (Padmavathy.S) (George George K) उपा�� / Vice President लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 04th August, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S EJTADA Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: DURGA NARESH 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant Date: 2026.08.07 NARESH 17:56:22 +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

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →