MUNISAMY KUMARESAN,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VELLORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3138/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 August 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) 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) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-filer, was subjected to reassessment proceedings under Section 147 based on information about cash deposits and contractor payments. The Assessing Officer made additions to the total income. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed solely on the grounds of delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned to decide the matter on merits. The merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not adjudicated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: GAGAN GOYAL & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 22.07.2026

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, [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”], dated 04.03.2026 confirming the assessment framed u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2018-19.

ITA No. 3138/Chny/2026 (AY 2018-19) Munisamy Kumaresan Vs ITO W1 :: 2 :: 2. The brief facts are that the appellant, a non-filer of return of income, was subjected to reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the basis of information indicating cash deposits of Rs.2,75,55,750/- and contractor payments of Rs.1,02,620/- during the relevant previous year. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23.03.2023 determining the total income at Rs.48,65,272/- as against the returned income of Rs.4,99,154/-.

3.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the appeal came to be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing, without adjudicating the issues raised on merits. Now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) deserves to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. The right of appeal is a valuable statutory right and, unless there is deliberate negligence or mala fide conduct, the matter should ordinarily be decided on merits rather than on technical considerations. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned. The impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to admit the appeal and dispose of the same afresh on merits, in accordance with law, after affording the appellant a

ITA No. 3138/Chny/2026 (AY 2018-19) Munisamy Kumaresan Vs ITO W1 :: 3 :: reasonable opportunity of being heard and after considering all submissions and evidence that may be placed on record.

5.

Since the matter is being restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, we express no opinion on the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. All legal and factual issues raised by the parties are left open to be urged before the CIT(A), who shall decide the same independently and in accordance with law.

6.

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

Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार िग#र) (गगन गोयल) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (Gagan Goyal) %या�यक सद$य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद$या/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे%नई/Chennai, 'दनांक/Dated: 04th August, 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

SANDEEP Digitally signed by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.08.05 16:46:07 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →