RAVI,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VELLORE

ITA 3321/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 October 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that to meet the ends of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity. It was noted that the assessee had filed a condonation of delay in Form 35 itself, which the Tribunal considered sufficient cause. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal de novo on merits, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, failed to file an income tax return for Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted cash deposits of Rs. 23,76,000 and sale of immovable property for Rs. 51,84,100. The case was re-opened under Section 147. Despite notices, the assessee remained silent. The AO obtained bank statements and made additions of Rs. 23,76,000 as unexplained money under Section 69A and Rs. 51,84,000 as undisclosed short-term capital gain. An ex-parte assessment order was passed on 13.12.2023. The assessee appealed to the CIT(Appeals) on 18.06.2024, with a delay of 158 days. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay and without adjudicating on merits due to the assessee's non-participation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay of 158 days and without adjudicating the matter on merits, especially when the assessee had filed a petition for condonation of delay within the appeal form (Form 35)? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The learned Authorized Representative (AR) argued that the CIT(Appeals) erred by not considering the documents filed by the assessee, which were relevant to the additions made, and by not calling for a remand report from the AO. The AR prayed for setting aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remitting the issues back to the AO. Revenue's Contention: The learned Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 158 days, indicating negligence on the part of the assessee, and therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) should be confirmed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 133(6),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA

For Respondent: Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 19.08.2026Pronounced: 05.10.2026

PER S.R. RAGHUNATHA, AM : This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 29.04.2026, arising from the assessment order dated 13.12.2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 passed by the Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Delhi [hereinafter referred to a

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 →