MUTHAIAH GANAPATHY RAJAARUNMOZHI,KUNDRATHUR vs. DCIT, NON CORP.CIRCLE 8(1),, ANNEXURE BUILDING,CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3890/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 October 2026AY 2023-243 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee requires another opportunity before the CIT(A) to contest the issues on merits. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not discussed the merits of the case, having dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of chronic health issues, while not fully satisfying the CIT(A), warranted further consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits. The assessee was granted liberty to file evidence before the CIT(A), who was directed to consider it and pass an order in accordance with law. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Muthaiah Ganapathy, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for the assessment year 2023-24. The appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) due to a delay of 315 days in filing. The assessee's explanation for the delay was that he was suffering from chronic health issues. The Assessing Officer (AO) had determined the assessee's income at Rs. 16,78,659/-, making additions on account of unsecured loans and sundry creditors, and disallowing expenses, with no evidence filed before the AO. The CIT(A) was not satisfied with the explanation for the delay and did not adjudicate the issues on merits. The assessee appealed this dismissal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 315 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation of chronic health issues (question of fact and law, turning on principles of condonation of delay). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was due to chronic health issues and was neither intentional nor deliberate. They prayed for the matter to be remanded to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. Revenue's Contention: The revenue vehemently opposed the remand, submitting that the assessee had not made out a sufficient cause to explain the significant delay of 315 days.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, ’ए’ �ायपीठ,चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ीयस यस िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं सु�ीपदमावती यस, लेखा सद�के सम� BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 3890/Chny/2026 िनधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Muthaiah Ganapathy Vs. The DCIT, Rajaarunmozhi, Non Corp. Circle-8(1), Plot No 3c Sri Vaishnavi Nagar Chennai. Extension 2, VBR 2nd Street Kovur, Kancheepuram-Tamil Nadu, 600128. [PAN: AKBPR9507N] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. Koushik Raja S, Advocate ��थ�कीओरसे/ Respondent by Ms. R. Anita, CIT : सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of hearing : 15.09.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2026 : आदेश /O R D E RJ PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi for the assessment year 2023-24.

2.

At the outset, it is noted that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine by the Ld. CIT(A) for non-satisfaction of the explanation furnished by the assessee with reference to a delay of 315 days.

2 ITA No. 3890/Chny/2026 3. The Ld. AR, Mr. Koushik Raja S., Advocate, submitted that the delay-condonation petition was filed before the Ld. CIT(A), explaining that the assessee was suffering from chronic health issues and, therefore, could not file the appeal within the prescribed time before the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. The Ld. AR prayed to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits.

4.

The Ld. DR, Ms. R. Anita, CIT, vehemently opposed remanding the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay. She submitted that no sufficient cause was made out by the assessee to explain the huge delay of 315 days.

5.

After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, we note that the Ld. CIT(A) discussed the delay in paragraph No. 5 of the impugned order, wherein he reproduced the reasons explained by the assessee at page No. 3 of the impugned order. On perusal of the same, we note that the assessee contended that he was not able to file the appeal in time as he was seriously ill with chronic health issues and prayed for condonation of the delay. However, the Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the said explanation.

6.

On perusal of the assessment order, we note that the AO determined the income of the assessee at Rs.16,78,659/- as against the returned income of Rs.54,57,580/-, inter alia, making additions on account of unsecured loans from others, sundry creditors and disallowance of expenses. Admittedly, no evidence was filed before the AO. As discussed above, there was no discussion on merits by the Ld.

3 ITA No. 3890/Chny/2026 CIT(A), as he was not satisfied with the explanation offered for condonation of the delay.

7.

In view of the same, in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee requires another opportunity before the Ld. CIT(A) to contest the issues on merits. Therefore, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence, if any, before the Ld. CIT(A), and the Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the same and pass an order in accordance with law. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 13th October, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S. PADMAVATHY) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Chennai, Dated: 13.10.2026 MM आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड�फाईल/GF.

Digitally signed MANISH by MANISH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2026.10.14 12:03:36 +05'30'

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →