KAMATCHIAPPAN ARIVANANTHAN,CUMBUM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, THENI

ITA 3333/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 October 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was condoned, as the assessee had filed a condonation of delay in Form 35, which constituted sufficient cause. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals), which dismissed the appeal in limine due to the delay, 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, Kamatchiappan Arivananthan, is an individual who did not file his return of income for Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessing Officer (AO), based on information of cash deposits totaling Rs. 24,14,580/- and Rs. 32,88,800/- in his bank accounts, re-opened the assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A notice under Section 148 was issued, and the assessee eventually filed a return of income on 21.10.2024, declaring Rs. 2,45,600/-. The AO made an addition of Rs. 10,39,300/- as income from other sources and completed the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144B. The assessee appealed this order before the CIT(Appeals) on 05.02.2026, but the appeal was filed with a delay of 294 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) by 294 days is condonable on the grounds of medical treatment for mental agony and change of auditor. Assessee's Contention: The learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee argued that the delay was due to the assessee undergoing medical treatment for mental agony and a change of auditor. The AR prayed for the setting aside of the CIT(A)'s order and remittance of the issues to the AO, assuring representation before the AO for effective assessment proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The learned Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue submitted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 294 days, which is beyond the stipulated time limit of 30 days. The assessee was negligent in filing the appeal within the prescribed time, and therefore, the order of the CIT(A) should be confirmed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148

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 09.04.2026, arising from the assessment order dated 18.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 passed by the Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, 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 →