VELAMMAL,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD-3,, TIRUNELVELI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1616/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 June 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's medical complications. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after calling for necessary details.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2019-20. The AO reopened the assessment based on information of property purchase. The assessee filed a return but did not respond to notices, leading to the AO treating the property consideration as unexplained investment. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay of 179 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable due to medical reasons. Whether the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND MS. PADMAVATHY.S

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha,Addl.CIT

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), Chennai-19 (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 30.01.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20.

2.

The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for the AY 2019-20. The A.O received information that the assessee has

ITA No.1616/Chny/2026 Velammal :- 2 -:

purchased immovable property during the year under consideration. 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 in response filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,99,110/-. The assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued and therefore, the A.O completed the assessment by treating the consideration paid towards purchase of property as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay of 179 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

3.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee had undergone serious medical complication and had to go through surgery. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was also diagnosed with early parkinson decease which cause severe shivering fatigue and memory related problems. The Ld. AR also submitted that due to these medical complications, the assessee could not concentrate on the tax matters and hence the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. AR in this regard filed an affidavit from the assessee along with the relevant medical related documents. The Ld. AR accordingly prayed that one more opportunity may be given. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case and in the interest of natural justice, we are convinced that there is a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and therefore we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the claim by producing the required details. Accordingly, we

ITA No.1616/Chny/2026 Velammal :- 3 -:

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is required to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with appellate proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 01st day of June, 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: 01st June, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S

आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु!/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA EJTADA DURGA NARESH NARESH Date: 2026.06.04 17:03:32 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →