K.PONNAMMAL,NAMAKKAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NAMAKKAL

ITA 4167/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 October 2026AY 2011-127 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, leaving substantive grounds unadjudicated. The assessee presented a bank certificate suggesting cash deposits of Rs.46,100/- against the Rs.12,00,000/- addition, which requires verification. Contentions regarding the service of notice under section 148 and other statutory notices, which go to the root of the assessment's validity, were also unexamined. Considering the substantial issues remaining unexamined, the assessee being elderly, and the assessment being ex parte, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The Assessing Officer is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee/legal representative to furnish documents and explanations and then pass a fresh assessment order. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the addition under section 69A or the validity of reassessment proceedings, leaving all issues open for adjudication by the Assessing Officer. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, K. Ponnammal, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 15.05.2026, which dismissed her appeal against an assessment order for AY 2011-12. The assessment order, passed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treated cash deposits of Rs.12,00,000/- in the assessee's bank account as unexplained money under section 69A. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to delay, without adjudicating the merits. The assessee's representative argued that the appeal was delayed by 764 days, but the COVID-19 period should be excluded. The assessee is elderly, sparsely educated, and a housewife. A bank certificate suggests total cash deposits were only Rs.46,100/-. The assessee also disputed the proper service of statutory notices, including the notice under section 148.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, considering the assessee's age, educational background, and circumstances? (Mixed law and fact, relying on principles of natural justice and condonation of delay provisions). 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in calculating the delay without excluding the period covered by the Supreme Court's suo motu directions in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation? 3. Whether the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction and reopened the assessment on incorrect facts, including non-service of notice under section 148 and other statutory notices? (Mixed law and fact, relying on Section 147 and principles of natural justice). 4. Whether the addition under section 69A read with section 115BBE is incorrect, given the discrepancy in cash deposit figures? Assessee's Contentions: - The appeal before the CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 764 days, but the period from 15.03.2020 to 31.05.2022, extended by the Supreme Court due to the COVID-19 pandemic, should be excluded. The effective delay would be substantially reduced, and there were sufficient bona fide reasons for the delay. - The assessment was completed ex parte under section 144, and the assessee did not receive statutory notices via email. Proper service of statutory notices, including the notice under section 148 dated 24.03.2018 (stated to be served on 25.09.2019), is disputed. - A bank certificate dated 07.02.2025 from Bank of Maharashtra, Namakkal, indicates total cash deposits of only Rs.46,100/- during the relevant financial year, contradicting the Rs.12,00,000/- forming the basis of the addition. - The assessee is aged about 85 years, sparsely educated, and dependent on her children. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue supported the order of the CIT(A), arguing that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: GAGAN GOYAL & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

For Respondent: Mr. Karthik Dasari, JCIT
Hearing: 16.09.2026

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 15.05.2026, whereby the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for the Assessment Year 2011-12 was dismissed in limin

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.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →