SIVASANKAR,METTUPALAYAM vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 1(4), TIRUPPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3779/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 October 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had a sufficient cause due to his father's medical condition and the provided medical records. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not appeared before the AO and that the impugned issues (quantum additions and penalties) had not been examined on merits by the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present the case on merits. The appeals were remitted back to the AO with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issues concerning both quantum additions and penalties for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 in accordance with the law. The assessee was directed to cooperate and submit required details without seeking unnecessary adjournments. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, failed to file income tax returns for Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16 and 2016-17. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed significant cash deposits in the assessee's bank account and initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not respond to the notice under Section 148 or provide any details. Consequently, the AO made additions of Rs. 49,64,200 for AY 2015-16 and Rs. 99,79,570 for AY 2016-17. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were also initiated, with penalties of Rs. 14,18,950 for AY 2015-16 and Rs. 30,83,387 for AY 2016-17. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), but these appeals were dismissed in limine due to substantial delays (ranging from 326 to 794 days) and the lack of a sufficient cause for the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee had a sufficient cause for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17, thereby warranting condonation of delay under Section 250 of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was due to the serious illness (cancer) of his father, requiring his full attention for treatment. Medical records of the father, Mr. Kuppusamy, were submitted. The assessee also claimed that his previous tax consultant did not provide proper advice. The assessee requested another opportunity to present details and offered an undertaking to cooperate. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the case. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals in limine due to the lack of sufficient cause for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 271(1)(c),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

For Respondent: Mr. Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju, Addl. CIT

आदेश / O R D E R

PER BENCH: These appeals by the assessee are against the separate orders 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 14.04.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015- 16 and 14.04.2026 & 15.04.2026 for AY 2016-17. The orders of the CIT(A) are arising out of the order passed by the AO u/s. 147 and Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for both the AYs.

ITA Nos.3777 to 3780/Chny/2025 Sivasankar :- 2 -:

2.

The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income. The A.O noticed that the assessee has made huge cash deposits into the bank account. Since the assessee has not filed the return of income the A.O issued the notice u/s.148 of the Act reopening the assessment. The assessee neither filed the return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act nor furnished any details. Accordingly, the A.O made an addition of Rs.49,64,200/- for AY 2015-16 and Rs., 99,79,570/- for AY 2016-17. The A.O also initiated penalty proceedings levying a penalty of Rs.14,18,950/- for AY 2015-16 and penalty of Rs.30,83,387/- for AY 2016-17 u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal against the orders of the A.O.

3.

There is a delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), the details of which are tabulated below: Assessment Appeal against the order Number of Year of the AO u/s. days of delay 2015-16 147 of the Act 794 days 2015-16 271(1)(c) of the Act 650 days 2016-17 147 of the Act 430 days 2016-17 271(1)(c) of the Act 326 days

4.

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine stating that the assessee did not substantiate the sufficient cause for the delay. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

5.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee’s father was suffering from cancer, and the assessee was fully occupied in taking care of his treatment. The Ld. AR accordingly submitted

ITA Nos.3777 to 3780/Chny/2025 Sivasankar :- 3 -:

that the assessee could not concentrate on his income tax matters and hence the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. AR in this regard submitted the various medical records of assessee’s father Mr. Kuppusamy and submitted that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The ld AR also submitted that the previous tax consultant of the assessee did not advise him properly and hence the assessee could not respond properly before the lower authorities. The Ld. AR accordingly prayed that one more opportunity may be given and further gave an undertaking that if the opportunity is given, the assessee would file all the relevant details. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case and the medical records furnished, we are of the view that the there is a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Hence, in the interest of natural justice, we condone the delay in filing all the appeals before the CIT(A). We notice that the assessee has not appeared before the AO also and that the impugned issues have not been examined on merits by the lower authorities with regard to all the appeals. Therefore, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee to contend the impugned issues i.e. both quantum addition and the penalty for AY 2015-16 and AY 216-17 on merits by producing the required details. Accordingly, we remit the impugned issues pertaining both quantum addition and the penalty for AY 2015-16 and AY 216-17 back to the A.O with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is required to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with the proceedings without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly.

ITA Nos.3777 to 3780/Chny/2025 Sivasankar :- 4 -:

6.

Further, we also levy a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) in the appeals since considerable time and efforts have been spent by the Exchequer and for the reason that the assessee being delinquent before the lower authorities. The same shall be paid by the assessee to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the A.O.

7.

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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

Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वक�) (पदमावती यस) (ABY. T. Varkey) (Padmavathy.S) लेखा सद�य /Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 12th October, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S EJTADA Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA NARESH DURGA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: Date: 2026.10.14 NARESH 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 11:55:29 +05'30' 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड! फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →