SETHU ANBAZHAGAN,CADALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , CADADLORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1717/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 June 2026AY 2012-20133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

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

What were the facts?

The assessee declared agricultural income which was used to explain cash deposits. The AO made an addition for excess exemption claimed. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay in filing, without condoning it.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate their claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 154,Section 250,Section 44AD

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)/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 24.12.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.

2.

The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business and offered income u/s. 44AD of the Act. The case was reopened and the order u/s.

ITA No.1717/Chny/2026 Sethu Anbazhagan :- 2 -:

143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act was passed on 31.10.2019 determining the income at Rs. 2,00,000/-. Subsequently, the A.O passed an order u/s. 154 of the Act dated 17.12.2024 stating that the assessee during the course of assessment has stated agricultural income as one of the sources for cash deposit to the tune of Rs. 4,65,766/- whereas in the statement of income, the assessee had declared agricultural income as Rs.8,50,000/-. Accordingly, the A.O in the order u/s. 154 of the Act made an addition of Rs.3,82,240/- as excess exemption claimed by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay of 75 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.

There is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. 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.

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 had undergone medical complication due to which 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

ITA No.1717/Chny/2026 Sethu Anbazhagan :- 3 -:

from the assessee. 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 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.

5.

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 17:04:32 +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 →