RAMASAMY,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-3,, PUDUCHERRY

ITA 3331/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 October 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate any sufficient or reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) or for the repeated non-appearance before the ITAT. The assessee was afforded sufficient and repeated opportunities to prosecute the appeal before the ITAT, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was any application filed explaining the absence or seeking adjournment. Furthermore, even at the stage of filing the appeal before the ITAT, no affidavit or other material was furnished explaining the delay of one day. The Tribunal concluded that the continued absence of the assessee despite repeated opportunities reflected a lack of due diligence. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeals before both the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT was not condoned, and consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the assessment order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, filed a return of income for Assessment Year 2019-20 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,14,989/-. The Assessing Officer (AO), based on information that the assessee received Rs. 7,01,535/- as commission from M/s. Dream Makers Global Pvt Ltd. which was not included in the return, re-opened the assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Despite notices, the assessee remained silent. The AO completed the assessment ex-parte, adding Rs. 7,01,535/- and determining the total assessed income at Rs. 10,16,524/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(Appeals) with a delay of 273 days. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal in limine, finding no sufficient cause for the delay. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT with a delay of 1 day. The assessee also failed to appear before the ITAT on multiple hearing dates.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 273 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was justifiable on 'sufficient and reasonable cause' under the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the delay of 1 day in filing the appeal before the ITAT was justifiable on 'sufficient cause' under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the assessee's repeated non-appearance before the ITAT warranted dismissal of the appeal. Assessee's contentions: The assessee did not file any submissions or appear before the ITAT to argue the case. The judgment notes that no affidavit was filed for condoning the delay before the ITAT. Revenue's contentions: The Learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities and argued that the assessee was negligent in participating in proceedings before all authorities, including the ITAT, and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 144B

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

Hearing: 27.08.2026Pronounced: 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 09.03.2026, arising from the assessment order dated 06.01.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20 passed by the Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi [herein

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 →