SIVAN SURATHA MADASAMY,TENKASI vs. ITO, TIRUNELVEL

ITA 3828/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 September 2026AY 2024-20254 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to the assessee's case. The Tribunal condoned the delay in the interest of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not appeared before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A), and the lower authorities had not examined the impugned issues on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the claim by producing the required details. Accordingly, the Tribunal remitted the impugned issues back to the CIT(A) with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with the law. The assessee was directed to submit the necessary details and cooperate with the proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sivan Suratha Madasamy, an individual engaged in commission-based activities, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2024-25. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the assessee's income, including commission income and short-term capital gains, amounting to Rs. 21,65,345/-, after observing substantial cash deposits and the sale of property for Rs. 13,07,116/- which was not offered for taxation. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 124 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there was a sufficient cause for the delay of 124 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), as required under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was not intentional or deliberate but occurred due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances. The assessee, being an individual with limited financial resources, faced severe financial constraints preventing immediate professional assistance. Furthermore, the process of collecting and verifying documentary evidence, such as the registered sale deed and encumbrance certificate related to the property transaction, took considerable time due to practical difficulties in accessing records. The assessee claimed to have obtained all necessary documents and prepared the appeal with complete and correct facts. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the Revenue regarding the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & MS. PADMAVATHY.S

For Respondent: Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl. CIT

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 27.05.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2024-25. 2. The assessee is an individual and engaged in commission-based activity. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2024-25 on Sivan Suratha Madasamy :- 2 -:

31.03.

202

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →