SENTHIL MOOKAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2098/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 June 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The penalty appeals were also remitted for fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual and agriculture product vendor, did not file an income tax return for AY 2018-19. The AO reopened the assessment and estimated income at 15% of gross receipts, making an addition. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a significant delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the quantum addition and penalty levied were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 270A,Section 271A,Section 271B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: MS. PADMAVATHY.S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

For Respondent: Mr. C.P. Solomon, Addl. CIT

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: These appeals by the assessee are against the separate orders 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") for Assessment Years (AYs) 2018-19. The order of the CIT(A) are emanating from the order of the A.O passed u/s. 147 and penalty u/s. 270A, 271A and 271B of the Act. For the purpose of adjudication, we will first consider the appeal filed against the quantum addition made u/s. 147 of the Act.

ITA No.2098 to 2101/Chny/2026 Senthil Mookan :- 2 -:

2.

The assessee is an individual and is a vendor in agriculture products. The assessee did not file the return of income for AY 2018-19. The A.O received information that the assessee has substantial financial transactions in the bank account. Since the assessee did not file the return of income, the AO reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act after passing the order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act. The assessee in response filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs. 2,30,750/-. Since the assessee did not file any further details, the A.O based on the data available on record estimated the income of the assessee at 15% of the gross receipts as reflected in the bank statement to make an addition of Rs. 21,60,336/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay 371 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). 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 is a vegetable vendor and is not well versed with income tax matters and completely dependent on the tax consultant who did not handle matter properly and hence the delay. 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 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 AO with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with

ITA No.2098 to 2101/Chny/2026 Senthil Mookan :- 3 -:

law. The assessee is required to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

4.

Further, we also levy a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) in the appeal since considerable time and efforts have been spent by the Exchequer and for the reason that the assessee being delinquent before the lower authorities. The same shall be paid by the assessee to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the AO.

5.

In view of our decision with regard to the quantum of addition, we are remitting the appeals arising out of the penalty orders also back to the A.O to be decided afresh along with the issue pertaining to addition made in the order passed u/s. 147 of the Act.

6.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 19th day of June, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार िग"र) (पदमावती यस) (Manu Kumar Giri) (Padmavathy.S) �याियक �याियक सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य / Judicial Member सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 19th June, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S

ITA No.2098 to 2101/Chny/2026 Senthil Mookan :- 4 -:

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: 2026.06.23 11:55:25 +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 →