ARAVIND,SALEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (1), , SALEM

ITA 3853/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 September 2026AY 2024-253 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 peculiar facts and circumstances of the assessee's case and the reliance on the tax consultant. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Observing that the lower authorities had not examined the impugned issues on merits, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their claim by producing the required details. Accordingly, the Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay, call for necessary details, and decide the issue on merits 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, an individual, filed a return of income for Assessment Year 2024-25 declaring a total income of Rs. 9,77,244/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) selected the case for scrutiny and determined that the assessee had earned income from business, not salary as declared. Consequently, the AO added Rs. 21,96,900/- as business income and reduced the declared salary income to zero. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), but there was a delay of 46 days in filing the appeal. The assessee attributed this delay to a bonafide belief that the tax consultant was handling the filing and an inadvertent error by the consultant. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) when the appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) without condoning the delay, turning on the interpretation of principles of natural justice and the powers vested in the appellate authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the delay was due to reasons beyond their control, specifically the inadvertent error of their tax consultant, and that they were not well-versed in income tax matters, relying on the principle of giving one more opportunity in the interest of natural justice. The assessee sought an opportunity to present their case on merits. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the case at the Tribunal stage.

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 18.06.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2024-25. 2. The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for AY 2024-25 declaring total income of Rs.9,77,244/-. The case was s

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 →