LOURDUSAMY PHILOSHALINI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, , CHENNAI

ITA 3851/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 September 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 281 days in filing the appeal, finding reasonable and sufficient cause based on the assessee's affidavit and the Supreme Court decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471). The Tribunal also granted the assessee one more opportunity to represent the case properly before the lower authorities in the interest of natural justice and fair play. The appeal was remitted 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 required details and cooperate with the proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Lourdusamy Philoshalini, an individual, failed to file a return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information of substantial financial transactions. The assessee subsequently filed a return declaring Rs. 4,35,180/- as total income, stating salary as the sole source. The AO treated a credit card payment of Rs. 58,06,561/- as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C and bank credits of Rs. 25,29,829/- (other than salary) as unexplained credits under Section 69A. The assessee's appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-response to notices. The assessee is now before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should condone the delay of 281 days in filing the appeal by the assessee, considering the reasons provided in the affidavit? Assessee's Contention: The delay was caused because the tax consultant handling the assessee's affairs did not inform about the appellate order being passed. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to represent the case before the lower authorities, given the circumstances? Assessee's Contention: The assessee was unaware of the income tax proceedings and completely relied on their counsel, who did not provide proper professional support, preventing adequate representation before the lower authorities. The assessee prayed for one more opportunity. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69C,Section 69A,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 16.09.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. 2. The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income. The AO received information that the assessee is hav

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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →