MUSLIM ARTS COLLEGE, KANYAKUMARI, TAMILNADU,THIRUVITHANCODE, KANYAKUMARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NAGERCOIL, TOWER JUNCTION ROAD, NAGERCOIL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4475/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 October 2026AY 2019-20205 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 141 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause as the assessee claimed non-receipt of the FAA's order and remained unaware until contacted by the AO. While deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude in not responding to statutory notices, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, granted one more opportunity. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within one month and producing proof of payment. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish all requisite details without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Muslim Arts College, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2019-20. There was a delay of 141 days in filing the appeal, which the assessee attributed to not receiving or being aware of the FAA's order until contacted by the AO regarding outstanding arrears. The assessment itself was completed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with an addition of Rs. 1,84,26,400/- for unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A. The FAA's order was ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with three notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, considering the assessee's claim of not receiving the FAA's order? (Question of fact) 2. Whether the assessee was denied natural justice, given the ex-parte assessment and FAA's order due to non-receipt of notices? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and Section 144B) Assessee's arguments: The assessee contended that it was unaware of the appellate proceedings as notices from the FAA were not received. It argued that it had only partially responded to show-cause notices during assessment and sought one more opportunity to furnish necessary details before the AO. The assessee undertook to cooperate and provide information when called upon. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue argued that adequate opportunities were provided by both the FAA and AO, and there was no violation of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Hearing: 13.10.2026Pronounced: 13.10.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 27.01.2026, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2019-20.

- 2 - ITA No.4475/CHNY/2026 Muslim Arts College 2. There is a delay of 141 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of the delay, duly supported by an affidavit, explaining therein the reasons for delay. It is stated that the order passed by the FAA was not received or served upon the assessee and, consequently, the assessee remained unaware of the same. The assessee came to know of the impugned order only upon receiving a telephone call from the AO regarding the outstanding tax arrears. Immediately thereafter, the assessee consulted its tax consultant and filed the present appeal without further delay. On perusal of the reasons stated, we are of the view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.

3.

At the very outset, we notice that the order of First Appellate Authority (FAA) is ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to three notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. Further, we also note that the assessment has been completed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making addition of Rs.1,84,26,400/- towards unexplained cash deposits u/s.69A of the Act.

- 3 - ITA No.4475/CHNY/2026 Muslim Arts College 4. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee was unaware of the appellate proceedings since the notices issued by the FAA was not received / served upon the assessee and, therefore, remained ex- parte before the FAA. The AO completed the assessment by making an addition of Rs.1,84,26,400/- towards unexplained cash deposits u/s.69A of the Act, since the assessee had not furnished the requisite evidences in support of its claim. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had only partially responded to the show-cause notices issued during the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld.AR pleaded that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee and the matter may be restored to the file of the AO, so as to enable the assessee to furnish all the necessary details. The Ld.AR further undertook that the assessee would duly appear and file the requisite details as and when called for by the AO.

5.

The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the FAA & AO and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was submitted that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

- 4 - ITA No.4475/CHNY/2026 Muslim Arts College 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR fairly submitted that the assessee could not furnish complete details before the AO during the assessment proceedings and, therefore, sought one more opportunity to substantiate its claim by producing the requisite particulars. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the statutory notices issued by the FAA & AO. However, considering the submissions of the Ld. AR and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee, subject to payment of a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The cost shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order, and the assessee shall produce proof of such payment before the AO. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues afresh in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to co- operate with the Revenue and furnish all requisite details and evidences in support of its claim and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

- 5 - ITA No.4475/CHNY/2026 Muslim Arts College

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13th October,2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (गगन गोयल) (GAGAN GOYAL) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 13th October, 2026 RSR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Madurai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.10.15 10:00:30 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →