JUSTEEN,TUTICORIN vs. ITO, WARD-2,, TUTICORIN

आदेश/O R D E R

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 31.12.2025 and 15.12.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [‘ld.CIT(A)’ in short] for Assessment Year 2019-20, respectively.

2 I.T.A. I.T.A. No. I.T.A. I.T.A. No. No.795 No. 795 795 & 825/Chny/2026 795 825/Chny/2026 825/Chny/2026 825/Chny/2026

same identical facts with regards to sole assessee, therefore, upon

hearing both the parties and with their consent we proceed to hear both

the appeals together and pass a common order for the sake of

convenience.

assessment year 2019-20. We find the assessee preferred an appeal

against the assessment order dated 02.01.2024 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s.

144 & 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ in short] before the

ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 664 days. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

inlimine having not satisfied with the reasons explained therein. We find

the assessee filed delay condonation petition along with Form 35 which is

reproduced in para 2 of the impugned order. It was explained that the

mother of assessee was sick and completely bed ridden. The assessee

is the only son to take care of his mother. Further, it was contended that

the assessee approached the Chartered Accountant [CA] to file the

appeal against the assessment order and handed over entire

documentary evidences to the CA, but however no appeal was filed by

the said CA. The contention was raised before the ld.CIT(A) though the

3 I.T.A. I.T.A. No. I.T.A. I.T.A. No. No.795 No. 795 795 & 825/Chny/2026 795 825/Chny/2026 825/Chny/2026 825/Chny/2026

appeal was not filed in time, the appeal fee was filed within the time.

Therefore, the assessee prayed the ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay in

filing the appeal.

the assessee’s mother, but however the certificate dated 25.05.2024

which is at Page no. 1 of the paperbook, we note that the assessment

order was passed on 02.01.2024 and date of death of assessee’s mother

was on 25.05.2024 which clearly shows the date of death of his mother

was just after passing of the assessment order. Therefore, we find the

reasons explained by the assessee to condone the delay of 664 days are

bonafide which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time.

Accordingly, we are of the consider view, that the ld.CIT(A) shall consider

the delay condonation petition and condone the delay and adjudicate the

issues on merits. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in

support of his claim. The assessee shall appear before the ld.CIT(A) in

compliance to the notices issued therein. Thus, grounds raised by the

assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4 I.T.A. I.T.A. No. I.T.A. I.T.A. No. No.795 No. 795 795 & 825/Chny/2026 795 825/Chny/2026 825/Chny/2026 825/Chny/2026

is allowed for statistical purposes.

AO imposed penalty u/s. 271B of the Act for failure to get accounts

audited. The AO issued notice in the penalty proceedings, but however

no compliance was made before the AO in response to notice issued in

the penalty proceedings. Thereby, the AO imposed penalty of Rs.

1,50,000/- vide his order dated 26.07.2024, which was challenged before

the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 458 days.

ld.CIT(A) in Page no.2 of the impugned order and found same as not

acceptable. Further, we considered the same reasons in remanding the

quantum appeal to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for a fresh consideration, but

however, it is a settled principle that the quantum and penalty

proceedings are independent to each other. The AO imposed penalty for

failure to get accounts audited and we find no explanation whatsoever

offered before AO. Therefore, the reasons explained by the assessee

with reference to illness of his mother is not acceptable to the penalty

5 I.T.A. I.T.A. No. I.T.A. I.T.A. No. No.795 No. 795 795 & 825/Chny/2026 795 825/Chny/2026 825/Chny/2026 825/Chny/2026

proceedings, thereby we find no infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) in

dismissing the penalty appeal inlimine.

is dismissed.

is allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No. 825/Chny/2026 is

dismissed. 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 10:42:32 +05'30'