DHAN CONSULTANTS,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 976/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2026AY 2020-216 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine due to delay without properly considering the medical condition of the partner as a reasonable cause. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee firm engaged in housing finance business failed to file its return of income for AY 2020-21. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 was issued, and the assessee filed a return with a presumptive income calculation. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by taxing the entire commission income without granting the benefit of the presumptive tax regime.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal despite the appellant showing a reasonable cause due to a partner's medical condition. The validity of proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional AO instead of a Faceless AO was also raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 151A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI BENCHES, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE ABY T VARKEY & HON’BLE INTURI RAMA RAO

For Respondent: Ms. R Anitha,Addl.CIT

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], dated 28.01.2026passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the 2020-21. 2. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal :

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal even after the reasonable cause being shown vide affidavit filed.

2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not noticing the medical condition of the partner of the appellant firm which prevented him from filing the appeal within the specified time limit.

3 The impugned proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessment Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer in violation of Section 151A of the IT Act is without jurisdiction and hence the entire assessment is liable to be negated.

4.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law not considering the settled position that the term sufficient cause is to be interpreted liberally so as to advance substantial justice. It is trite that substantial justice triumphs over technical consideration and procedural delays cannot be an embargo on delivery of substantial justice.

5.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the timelines for filing appeal should be strictly construed when the IT Act itself provides for filing of appeal beyond time limit.

6 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the bona fide delay in filing the appeal when no deliberate intent or any male fide is alleged.”

3.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Partnership Firm engaged in the business of Housing Finance Business. The appellant had not filed the Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2020-21. Based on the information that the appellant earned a commission and brokerage from Karur Vysya Bank, etc. Axis Bank. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s.148 was issued. In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the appellant filed Return of Income on 15.04.2024 disclosing income of Rs.7,99,450/- offering 6% presumptive income on the Gross Commission Income of Rs.99,93,122/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by e-Assessment Unit of the Department (hereinafter called ‘AO’) vide order dated 17.12.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs.1,41,882/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer brought to tax entire commission income without granting the benefit of presumptive tax regime.

4.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 135 days. The appellant also filed petition seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that delay had occurred on account of medical condition of the partner of the appellant firm which prevented him from filing the appeal within the specified time limit. However, the ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay by refusing to condone the delay by holding that the appellant could not demonstrate any sufficient cause for the delay after referring to numerous judicial precedents.

4.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The Learned Counsel submits that the ld.CIT(A) ought not have dismissed the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay. The appellant filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay.

5.

On the other hand, ld.Sr.DR vehemently opposed the above submissions.

6.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Chennai; "दनांक / Dated : 21st May, 2026 SGR, Sr.PS आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant.

1.

""यथ" / The Respondent.

2.3.

The CIT Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem.

4.

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, “सी” ब"च, चे"नई / DR, ITAT Chennai. गाड" फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. 6

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →