PERIADURAI ESAKKIMUTHU,TUTICORIN vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TUTICORIN

ITA 3657/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 October 2026AY 2020-213 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 234 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2020-21. While acknowledging the assessee's responsibility for vigilance, the Tribunal considered the severe ill health and subsequent demise of the Chartered Accountant, Shri S. Rajendran, as a significant factor. The Tribunal directed the assessee to remit Rs. 10,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, proof of which was taken on record. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed by the AO on 19.02.2025, making an addition of Rs. 5,52,85,267/- without hearing the assessee. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TIN Box Co. v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Periadurai Esakkimuthu, filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 10.04.2026 for Assessment Year 2020-21. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a delay of 234 days in filing. The assessee had also failed to respond to three notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessment order was passed by the AO on 19.02.2025, making an addition of Rs. 5,52,85,267/-. The assessee submitted an affidavit before the ITAT explaining the delay, citing the advanced age and ill health of their Chartered Accountant, Shri S. Rajendran, who subsequently passed away. The assessee also provided proof of remittance of Rs. 10,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority as directed by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 234 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2020-21 should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee, turning on the principles of natural justice and condonation of delay under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the assessment order passed by the AO, making an addition of Rs. 5,52,85,267/- without hearing the assessee, is valid, turning on the principles of natural justice and Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the severe ill health and subsequent demise of their Chartered Accountant, Shri S. Rajendran, who was entrusted with the case. They relied on the affidavit and medical records filed in support of their claim. The assessee also highlighted that the assessment order was passed without affording them an opportunity of being heard. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & MS. PADMAVATHY. S

Hearing: 28.08.2026Pronounced: 12.10.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 10.04.2026 for AY 2020-21 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act).

ITA 3657 /Chny/2026 (AY 2020-21) Periadurai Esakkimuthu :: 2 :: 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal since there was a delay of 234 days in filing of the appeal before him. Though, the assessee filed an affidavit stating the reason for condoning the delay, the Ld. CIT(A) being not convinced, refused to condone the delay. Further, he found that the assessee didn’t respond to his three (3) notices, hence, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine.

Before us, the assesse has filed the copy of the affidavit filed before the Ld. CIT(A) as well as submitted reason for the delay in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Having gone through the same, it is noted that the assessment order was passed on 19.02.2025 and the appeal was instituted before the Ld. CIT(A) on 12.11.2025 with a delay of 234 days. The assessee has brought to our notice that the CA, Shri S. Rajendran who was entrusted the case was aged about 80 years suffering from various ailments (sroke/cardio related ailments) for the last ten years [refer affidavit & medical records filed in support]. From the affidavit filed it reveals that Shri. S. Rajendran had passed away during the lis- pendens. Considering all these facts, we condone the delay in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to assessee that assessee ought to have been more vigilant, hence, we directed the assessee to remit Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority and furnish the prove of such remittance before us by order dated 19th August, 2026 and the assessee is noted to have filed proof of

ITA 3657 /Chny/2026 (AY 2020-21) Periadurai Esakkimuthu :: 3 :: remittance of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) dated 27.08.2026, which we take on record. Finding that the assessment order has been passed by the AO dated 19.02.2025 wherein the AO has made an addition of Rs.5,52,85,267/- without hearing the assessee, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of AO for de nova assessment by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC).

In this result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 12th day of October 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/-

(प�ावती .एस) (एबी टी. वक�) (PADMAVATHY. S) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 12th October, 2026. YS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF YASHVIR Digitally signed by YASHVIR SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.10.16 11:39:41 +05'30'

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →