SHIVAKUMAR MALAIMEGAM,PUZAL vs. ITO, NON-CORPORATE WARD 10(3), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

ITA 3962/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 September 2026AY 2017-186 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee constituted sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of familiarity with e-filing and e-assessment, the demise of his tax consultant, and the death of his father due to Covid-19, which caused significant disruption. It was also observed that the FAA had issued notices on merits to which the assessee responded, but no specific deficiency notice was issued regarding the delay before dismissal. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 723 and 547 days in the interest of justice and fair play. Furthermore, acknowledging that the reassessment and penalty orders were passed ex-parte due to the same reasons, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. This was subject to the condition that the assessee pays a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at the Hon'ble High Court of Madras for each appeal, totaling Rs. 10,000/-, to be paid within one month. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish details without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Shivakumar Malaimegam, filed appeals (ITA Nos. 3962 & 3963/CHNY/2026) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The appeals challenged orders passed by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 10(3), Chennai. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) dismissed the appeals in limine due to a delay of 723 and 547 days, finding the assessee's reasons for delay insufficient. The assessee's grounds for delay included unfamiliarity with e-filing/e-assessment procedures, the death of his tax consultant, the demise of his father due to Covid-19, and unawareness of e-filing login credentials and notices. Aggrieved, the assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 723 days and 547 days in filing the appeals before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) is to be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: The delay was occasioned by bona fide circumstances, including lack of familiarity with e-filing and e-assessment procedures, the death of the previous tax consultant, the passing away of his father due to Covid-19 causing disruption, and unawareness of e-filing login credentials and portal notices. The FAA dismissed the appeal in limine without issuing a deficiency notice or calling for specific explanations. The reassessment and penalty orders were ex-parte due to the same reasons. Revenue's contentions: The Ld. DR supported the order of the FAA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 22.09.2026Pronounced: 23.09.2026

PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29.05.2026 & 01.06.2026 ITA No.3962 & 3963/CHNY/2026 Sivakumar Malaimegam passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →