A.S. GARMENTS,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2,, TIRUPPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2453/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 July 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the COVID-19 pandemic and the reasons provided by the assessee. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partnership firm, failed to file its return of income for AY 2017-18. The AO reopened the case under Section 147 due to cash deposits and made an ex-parte addition of Rs. 1,00,57,763/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of approximately 6 months.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable, and if the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 17.06.2026Pronounced: 02.07.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉजज जॉजज के, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2453/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 A.S.Garments The Income Tax Officer No.34D Padmavathipuram North vs. Ward – 2 1st Street, Gandhinagar Post Tiruppur. Tirupur – 641 603. [PAN: ABCFA5537F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCA (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. Manjunath H.S, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17.06.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 02.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :

The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 01.01.2026 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”], arising from the assessment order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the AO”],

:-2-: ITA. No: 2453/Chny/2026 u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

At the outset, there is a delay of 28 days in filing of appeal before this Tribunal. We have perused the condonation of delay application and the affidavit filed by the assessee and are of the view that there is sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay is condoned, and the case is taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm and did not file its return of income for the A.Y.2017-18. As per the information available with the department, the AO found that the assessee has made cash deposits amounting to Rs.1,00,57,763/- into its current account maintained with ICICI Bank during the assessment year, out of which amount of Rs.2,08,000/- was deposited during the demonetization period. Hence, the case was re- opened u/s.147 of the Act, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act issued to the assessee on 29.03.2021. In response, the assessee has failed to file its return of income for the A.Y 2017-18. Further, the AO issued statutory notices to the assessee and by calling for details. The assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices. Hence, the AO completed the reassessment by passing an exparte order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 28.03.2022 by making an addition of Rs.1,00,57,763/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and arrived a total income of Rs.1,00,57,763/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 28.09.2022 with a delay in filing an appeal.

5.

At the outset, we observed that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine due to that the assessee had filed an appeal with a delay of around 6 months. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

:-3-: ITA. No: 2453/Chny/2026 6. The ld.AR submitted that the date of assessment order is 28.03.2022 and the appeal was filed on 28.09.2022 and the delay upto 29.05.2022 was squarely covered under the COVID-19 pandemic extension granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the ld.AR stated that the assessee firm came back to the business only after the lockdown and pandemic and all the pending compliances were carried out by the partners. Later, the assessee became aware of the assessment order passed by the AO during the COVID-19 pandemic and immediately contacted Mr. Lakshmi Ventataraman, CA through known colleague and filed the appeal before the first appellate authority. In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of AO. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment proceedings effectively.

7.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the appeal was to be filed before the ld.CIT(A) by the assessee within 30 days of the service, but the assessee has filed an appeal with delay of around 6 months. The assessee has been negligent in filing an appeal within the time limit provided and hence prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

8.

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed an exparte order by considering the information available with the department and on appeal the same has been dismissed in limine by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC without condoning the delay in filing of the appeal before the first appellate authority. Since, the assessee has failed to appear before the authorities and also filed an appeal with a delay before the first appellate authority, we levy the cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and the assessee shall satisfy the payment of cost before the authorities.

:-4-: ITA. No: 2453/Chny/2026 9. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, and in order to advance the cause of substantial justice, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is hereby condoned, as the assessee has duly set out the reasons for such delay in Form No. 35, which, in our considered opinion, constitutes sufficient cause. Consequently, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the AO and direct the AO to denovo frame the assessment order in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and to furnish necessary written submissions and relevant evidence, as may be called for, in a timely manner.

10.

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

Order pronounced in the court on 02nd July, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (जॉजा जॉजा के) (एस. आर. रघुनार्था) (GEORGE GEORGE K) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) उपाध्यक्ष /VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनांक/Dated, the 02nd July, 2026. Devadas आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy to: 1. अपीलार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुक्त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. पवभागीय प्रनतननधि/DR 5. गाडा फाईल/GF Digitally signed by DEVADAS DEVADAS GOPALANACHARY GOPALANACHARY Date: 2026.07.07 17:11:11 +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 →