DHAKSINAMURTHY RAMAMURTHY,CHENNAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD 8(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3712/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 October 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 211 days in filing the appeal, imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee, which was remitted to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Authorities. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea regarding his educational background and the alleged breach of trust by his CA, which led to ex-parte orders. The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. Considering the affidavit, undertaking by the assessee's counsel to appear and file submissions, and the reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in TIN Box Co. v. CIT, the Tribunal decided to grant one last opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the file of the AO for de-novo assessment. The assessee was directed to file written submissions and produce documents, and the AO was to frame a fresh assessment after hearing the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dhaksinamurthy Ramamurthy, engaged in milk distribution, is appealing an order for Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee did not file an Income Tax Return (ITR) initially. Upon receiving a notice under Section 148, the assessee filed an ITR on March 22, 2023, declaring a gross total income of Rs. 5,31,066. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted cash deposits of Rs. 60,04,200 in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank without explanation, which were added under Section 69A. A deduction of Rs. 54,000 under Chapter VIA was also disallowed. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-response to notices. The assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 211 days, attributing it to his semi-literate status, limited computer knowledge, and a breach of trust by his Chartered Accountant (CA) who allegedly failed to manage communications.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 211 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned, considering the assessee's plea of being semi-literate, limited computer knowledge, and reliance on his CA who allegedly failed to act, leading to ex-parte orders. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that he is semi-literate, has difficulty comprehending English and operating computers. He believed his CA would monitor communications and attend to notices. The CA's failure to do so resulted in the ex-parte order and the subsequent delay. The assessee only became aware of the demand after a telephonic call from the Income Tax Department. He relies on the Supreme Court decision in TIN Box Co. v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) for seeking an opportunity. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue regarding the condonation of delay or the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 139(1),Section 148,Section 69A,Section 44AA

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 23.09.2025 for AY 2016-17 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act).

2.

Before us, assessee has filed a petition for condoning the delay for filing of the appeal before this Tribunal along with an affidavit in which

ITA 3712/Chny/2026 (AY 2016-17) Dhaksinamurthy Ramamurthy :: 2 :: assessee claimed that he is a semi-literate person and has difficulty in comprehending english and also has limited knowledge in operating computer. According to assessee, he didn’t possess an independent email ID, therefore, his CA for the purpose of procedural compliance created an email-ID under the name ‘rklmilkcenter@gmail.com. According to assessee, he did not have access to abovesaid email-ID since the password remained with the CA. Further, it is disclosed in petition that, assessee was under the bona fide belief that the CA would be regularly checking the email and will attend to any notices issued. According to assessee, his CA failed to file any reply against the hearing notices issued by Ld CIT(A), due to which he wasn’t aware of the passing of the impugned order, hence the delay of 211 days happened in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. Condonation of delay we will discuss infra.

3.

At the outset, it is noted that the assessee is engaged in the business of Milk distribution. The assessee during the relevant assessment year did not file Income-tax return (ITR). The AO is noted to have reopened the assessment since assessee didn’t file the return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. Further, the assessee filed ITR on 22.03.2023 in response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act declaring gross total income of Rs.5,31,066/-. The AO noted that assessee had deposited cash in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank to the tune of Rs.60,04,200/- and didn’t explain the nature and source of such cash deposits, so the AO added it u/s.69A of the Act. Further, the AO disallowed Rs.54,000/- the deduction claimed under Chapter VIA, since assessee didn’t reply to his notices. The AO noted that assessee declared gross total income of

ITA 3712/Chny/2026 (AY 2016-17) Dhaksinamurthy Ramamurthy :: 3 :: Rs.5,31,066/- i.e. 8% of the gross receipts of Rs.66,38,319/- u/s.44AA of the Act. The AO is noted to have framed the assessment order on 19.02.2024 making an addition of Rs.60,04,200/- u/s.69A and disallowed Rs.54,000/- under Chapter VIA of the Act.

4.

Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal ex parte, since assessee didn’t respond to his four (4) notices.

5.

Aggrieved the assessee is before us. As noted supra, the assessee is noted to have filed the appeal with a delay of 211 days. The assessee pleads the reason for the delay was due to assessee’s limited educational background and that he was under a bona fide belief that the his CA would regularly monitor the progress of his case through correspondence from his registered e-mail account and take all necessary steps required to protect his interest. However, there was a breach of trust on the part of his CA, because of which none represented the assessee during the appellate proceedings, which led to the passing of impugned order. According to the assessee, inter alia, only after receiving telephonic call from the Income Tax Department directing the assessee to pay a demand of Rs.51,24,454/-, that the assessee came to know about the appellate proceedings and thereafter, immediately filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 211 days. The plea of the assessee condoning the delay cannot be overlooked and hence, we imposed a cost of Rs.5,000/- which assessee was directed to remit before the “Tamil Nadu State Legal Authorities” which has remitted by assessee on 27.08.2026; and the

ITA 3712/Chny/2026 (AY 2016-17) Dhaksinamurthy Ramamurthy :: 4 :: proof of the same has been filed before this Tribunal which we have taken note of and placed on record. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. Having condoned the delay, we note that the assessee is a Milk distributor for M/s. Hatsun Agro Products. The AO is noted to have reopened the assessment since; the assessee didn’t file the return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. However, the assessee filed RoI/ITR on 22.03.2023 in response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act declaring gross total income of Rs.5,31,066/-. The AO noted that assessee had deposited cash in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank of Rs.60,04,200/- and didn’t explain the nature and source of cash deposits, so he added it u/s.69A of the Act. The AO is noted to have disallowed Rs.54,000/- the deduction claimed under Chapter VIA of the Act. On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, since assessee didn’t respond to his four (4) notices.

6.

The AO as well as the Ld CIT(A) is noted to have passed ex-parte orders. The assessee has brought to our notice that despite handing over the case to CA, the impugned additions was made due to omission on the part of his CA not representing his case before the AO and pleaded for one more opportunity and the Ld AR Shri. T. Ajay Shankar, Advocate has further undertaken to appear, file written submission and produce documents called for by the AO and relies on the decision of the of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), prayed for one more opportunity before the AO. Having considered the affidavit and undertaking before us, we are inclined to give one last opportunity to assessee before the AO. Hence, we

ITA 3712/Chny/2026 (AY 2016-17) Dhaksinamurthy Ramamurthy :: 5 :: set aside the impugned order of Ld CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of AO for de-novo assessment. The assessee is directed to file written submission and produce documents called for by the AO; and the AO to frame fresh assessment after hearing the assessee in accordance to law.

7.

In the 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 15:57:51 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →