MM351 AALIPATTY PACLS,TRICHY vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TRICHY
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 with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue afresh. A cost of Rs. 15,000 was levied on the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an association of persons, failed to provide details during reassessment proceedings, leading to an ex-parte assessment. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a significant delay in filing without condoning it.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND MS. PADMAVATHY.S
आदेश / O R D E R
PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order 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") dated 07.10.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20.
The assessee is an association of persons. The A.O received information that the assessee has deposited cash to the tune of Rs.1,15,12,696/- and therefore, issued a show cause notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act. Subsequently, the A.O passed an order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act and
ITA No.1155/Chny/2026 MM351 Aalipatty PACLS :- 2 -:
issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Act reopening the assessment. Since the assessee did not file any details, the A.O completed the assessment assessing the income at Rs.1,15,12,695/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). There is a delay of 130 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and 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).
There is a delay of 58 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee being a credit cooperative society the office bearers and employees or rural residents who have very limited familiarity with faceless and electronic regime of income tax proceedings. The Ld. AR further submitted that that the tax consultant did not handle the assessment/appellate proceedings 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, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the claim by producing the required
ITA No.1155/Chny/2026 MM351 Aalipatty PACLS :- 3 -:
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 law. The assessee is required to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.
Further, we also levy a cost of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen 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 A.O.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 22nd day of April, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (पदमावती यस) (Padmavathy.S) (George George K) उपा�� / Vice President लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 22nd April, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S
ITA No.1155/Chny/2026 MM351 Aalipatty PACLS :- 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 EJTADA Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA NARESH DURGA Date: 2026.05.05 NARESH 16:51:58 +05'30'
More judgments on Section 148A
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026