LATE CHINNASAMY,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-3(1), COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 776/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 April 2026AY 2022-233 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the additions made by the AO required assistance from the assessee. Since no assistance was provided before the CIT(A), the matter was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 2 days due to the accountant's pre-occupation. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without considering the merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and the appeal should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54B,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Hearing: 15.04.2026Pronounced: 29.04.2026

आदेश/O R D E R

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [‘ld.CIT(A)’ in short] for Assessment Year 2022-23.

2 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.776/Chny/2026 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.776/Chny/2026 No.776/Chny/2026 No.776/Chny/2026

2.

At the outset, it is noted that the Assessing Officer [‘AO’ in short]

passed an assessment order on 15.03.2024 determining the total income

of the assessee at Rs.1,77,01,510/- as against the returned income of

Rs.3,64,010/-, inter alia, making the disallowances u/s. 54B of the

Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ in short] and u/s. 69 of the Act on account

of unexplained investment. The assessee preferred an appeal before the

ld.CIT(A) on 15.04.2024 with a delay of 2 days. The ld.CIT(A) referred

the reasons explained by the assessee from Para no.4 to 6 of the

impugned order. The assessee explained the said delay of 2 days was

due to the Accountant engaged with various time barring assessment

proceedings and for his pre-occupation, the appeal could not be filed in

time before the ld.CIT(A). The said explanation was not found acceptable

to the ld.CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal inlimine.

3.

Admittedly, the AO made an addition of two disallowances on

account of 54B of the Act and 69 of the Act, which requires in our opinion

assistance from the assessee. Since there was no assistance before the

ld.CIT(A), we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the

ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay of 2 days and adjudicate the issue on

merits. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of the

3 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.776/Chny/2026 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.776/Chny/2026 No.776/Chny/2026 No.776/Chny/2026

claim and assessee represented by his legal heir shall appear before the

ld.CIT(A) without fail. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

for statistical purposes.

4.

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

purposes.

Order pronounced on 29th April, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated : 29.04.2026 JPV आदेशकी'ितिलिपअ.ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ&/Appellant, 2.'(थ&/ Respondent, 3. आयकरआयु//CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय'ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड$ फाईल/GF.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.05.04 10:38:25 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 54B

All 814 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →