SEKAR MUGILDEV,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CUDDALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4313/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 October 2026AY 2018-20193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 953 days in filing the appeal before it, finding the assessee's reasons to be bona fide and preventing timely filing. Regarding the delay before the CIT(A), the Tribunal noted the assessee's explanation of a serious accident on 5.12.2019, 70% disability, and lack of financial support. The Tribunal found these reasons reasonable and likely to have prevented timely filing. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the application for condonation of delay and for adjudication of the issues on merits. The assessee was granted liberty to file supporting evidence. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sekar Mugildev, filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal was filed with a delay of 953 days. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined the total income at Rs. 71,73,329/-, making additions under Section 69A for unexplained money and disallowing 10% of total credits as commission income. The assessee had previously appealed to the CIT(A) with a delay of 596 days, which was dismissed in limine. The assessee's current appeal to the ITAT addresses the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 953 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned. The assessee contended that the delay was due to bona fide reasons, specifically a serious accident and resulting disability. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point in the judgment. 2. Whether the delay of 596 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the explanation for the delay, which was due to medical grounds following an accident on 5.12.2019, requiring six months of bed rest, and the assessee's 70% disability and lack of livelihood. The revenue opposed the condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Hearing: 13.10.2026Pronounced: 27.10.2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, ’ए’ �ायपीठ,चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4313/Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sekar Mugildev, Vs. The ITO, NO 138/31 throwpathy ammankoil Circle-1, street, velachery, Chennai, Cuddalorei. Tamil Nadu-600042. [PAN: BBEPM1157Q] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. Sreemann Narayana, Advocate. ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 13.10.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 953 days. The assessee filed an affidavit accompanied by a petition explaining the reasons. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee are bona fide, which really prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 953 days is condoned.

2 I.T.A. No.4313/Chny/2026

3.

At the outset, we note that the AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 71,73,329/-, inter alia, making additions on account of unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) and disallowance of 10% of the total credits on account of commission income, vide his order dated 6.3.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Act, against which the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 596 days.

4.

The Ld. AR Mr. Sreemann Narayana, Advocate submits that the Ld. CIT(A), without considering the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the delay of 596 days, dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine and prayed for one more opportunity in the interest of justice.

5.

The Ld. DR Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl. CIT opposed the same.

6.

Having heard both the parties, we note that the assessee explained the reasons for the delay in column No. 5 of the statement of facts on medical grounds, and the details of such reasons were reproduced in para No. 3 of the impugned order. On perusal of the same, we note that the assessee primarily contended that he met with an accident on 5.12.2019 and was advised bed rest for six months. He further stated that he is 70% disabled and has no means of livelihood. Further, he also stated that he is getting disability pension from the Government of Tamil Nadu and is not as healthy as other persons. We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for the delay of 596 days are reasonable, as the accident and lack of financial support appears to have prevented assessee from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the additions

3 I.T.A. No.4313/Chny/2026

involved therein, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the application for condonation of delay to condone the delay and adjudication of the issues on merits. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence in support of his claim. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced on 27th October, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 27.10.2026 MM/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.

Digitally signed MANISH by MANISH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2026.10.30 17:49:27 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →