NATARAJ DAMODHARAN,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TIRUPPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3740/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 October 2026AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 212 days in filing the appeal before the Learned CIT(A), considering the assessee's submission that he was employed as a marine engineer and was outside the territorial waters of India during the relevant period, which hindered his ability to file the appeal. The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the file of the Learned CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the grounds of appeal, including the legal issue raised against the reopening of the assessment. The assessee was directed to file written submissions and documents, and the Learned CIT(A) was instructed to decide the grounds of appeal in accordance with the law after hearing the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that a delay caused by unavoidable circumstances related to employment, especially overseas, can be condoned to ensure a fair hearing on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Natraj Damodharan, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions totaling Rs. 1,40,03,000/- comprising Rs. 1,19,00,000/- under Section 69, Rs. 8,33,000/- under Section 69B, and Rs. 12,70,000/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not file a return of income. The AO reopened the assessment and issued notices under Section 148, which were not responded to by the assessee. The Learned CIT(A) passed an ex parte order, confirming the additions without condoning a delay of 212 days in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's employment as a marine engineer and limited availability in India.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without condoning the delay of 212 days in filing the appeal, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, as argued by the assessee? The assessee contended that the delay was due to his employment as a marine engineer, often outside territorial waters of India, which prevented him from taking effective steps to file the appeal. The assessee sought one more opportunity before the authorities below. 2. Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Sections 69, 69B, and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are sustainable, as implicitly raised by the assessee's plea for adjudication on merits? The revenue, through the Learned DR, argued against granting another opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 69B,Section 69A,Section 148,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: 20.08.2026Pronounced: 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 29.05.2026 for AY 2015-16 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). 2. At the outset, Ld. AR of the assessee drawing our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order qua the assessee without condoning the delay of

ITA 3740 /Chny/2026 (AY 2015-16) Natraj Damodharan :: 2 :: 212 days in filing of the appeal before him. In this regard, he brought to our notice that the AO has made an addition inter alia of Rs.1,19,00,000/- u/s.69; and Rs.8,33,000/- u/s.69B; and Rs.12,70,000/- u/s.69A of the Act; thus, making a total addition of Rs.1,40,03,000/- without giving the proper opportunity to the assessee. Hence, he pleaded for one more opportunity before the authorities below.

3.

Per contra, the Ld. DR does not want us to give one more opportunity to the assessee.

4.

Heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, it is noted that the assessee didn’t file his return of income. The AO received information that the assessee had purchased immovable property for a consideration of Rs.1,19,00,000/- and that he had deposited cash of Rs.12,70,000/- in his saving bank account with ICICI Bank. Accordingly, he reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act and is noted to have issued several notices to the assessee, which weren’t responded by the assessee. Hence, AO made total addition of Rs.1,40,03,000/- by passing the assessment order on 18.10.2023. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee since there was delay of 212 days in filing of the appeal before him. The Ld. CIT(A) is noted to have declined to condone the delay though assessee brought to his notice that he is employed as marine engineer in a “Ship” and comes to India for limited days which is dependent upon various operational factors. Before us, the Ld. AR brought to our notice that assessee was outside territorial waters of India during the relevant time which prevented him from taking effective steps to file the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the relevant papers, we condone the delay of 212 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal

ITA 3740 /Chny/2026 (AY 2015-16) Natraj Damodharan :: 3 :: back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the ground of appeal raised by the assessee including the legal issue raised against the reopening of the assessment. The assessee is directed to file the written submissions/documents to substantiate her argument before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal including the legal issue if any raised by the assessee in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.

5.

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 15:00:42 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →