SANJAYKUMAR SRINVASAN,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-3(2), COIMBATORE

ITA 3334/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 October 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in order to advance the cause of substantial justice, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. The delay of 70 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned, as the assessee had set out the reasons for the delay in Form No. 35, which the Tribunal considered sufficient cause. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on its merits, in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to cooperate fully and furnish necessary written submissions and relevant evidence in a timely manner. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sanjaykumar Srinivasan, is an individual who did not file his return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) re-opened the case under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information that the assessee's deceased father, Late Shri Rangaraj Srinivasan, had made a cash deposit of Rs. 14,43,550/- during the demonetization period. A notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee as the legal heir. The assessee failed to file the return or respond to subsequent statutory notices. Consequently, the AO made an addition of Rs. 14,43,550/- as unexplained money under Section 69A and completed the assessment ex-parte under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], NFAC, Delhi, but filed the appeal with a delay of 70 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to this delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) should condone the delay of 70 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the reasons provided by the assessee. Assessee's Contention: The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex-parte order. The first appellate authority (CIT(A)) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without seeking any explanation for the delay. The assessee argued that Form-35 mentioned the intention to file an affidavit for condonation of delay, and the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering this. The assessee prayed for the order of the CIT(A) to be set aside and the matter remitted to the AO. Revenue's Contention: The appeal was to be filed within 30 days of service, but the assessee filed it with a delay of 70 days. The assessee was negligent in filing within the prescribed time limit, and therefore, the order of the CIT(A) confirming the dismissal should be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,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 06.04.2026, arising from the assessment order dated 16.09.2021 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 passed by the Assessing Officer

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 →