VEERAPPAN ARIVALAGAN,THANJAVUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, KUMBAKONAM, KUMBAKONAM

ITA 4249/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 October 2026AY 2018-193 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 249 days in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons to be bonafide and genuinely preventing timely filing. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal held that due to the complete lack of compliance by the assessee before both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), it was in the interest of justice to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file supporting evidence for their claims. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The principle established is that while non-compliance is a serious issue, a remand may be granted in the interest of justice to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case with evidence, especially when the delay is condoned.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Veerappan Arivalagan, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, against the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19. The appeal was filed with a delay of 249 days, which the Tribunal condoned after finding the assessee's reasons to be bonafide. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made no compliance before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A). The AO had completed the assessment in the absence of any explanation or documentary evidence. Similarly, the CIT(A) had issued four notices, to which the assessee made no compliance.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 249 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the delay was due to bonafide reasons that prevented timely filing. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue regarding the delay. 2. Whether the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, given the lack of compliance by the assessee before the lower authorities. Assessee's contention: The assessee, through their ld. AR, submitted arguments leading to the remand. The specific arguments are not detailed but were considered by the Tribunal. Revenue's contention: The ld. DR's submissions were also considered by the Tribunal, implying they participated in the proceedings regarding the remand.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 13.10.2026Pronounced: 26.10.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस.आर. रघुनाथा, 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. 4249/Chny/2026 िनधा$रण वष$/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Veerappan Arivalagan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 11,12A, Dabir East Street, Ward-1, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Kumbakonam. [PAN: AHWPA-4807-A] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. S. Girish Kumar, 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 : 26.10.2026 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 29.09.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19.

:-2-: ITA No: 4249/Chny/2026

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 249 days. The

assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said

delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we

find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really

prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, delay of 249

days condoned.

At the outset, it is noted that no compliance whatsoever made by

the assessee before the AO and the ld.CIT(A) which is evident from para

no.2 of the assessment order, wherein the AO concluded the

assessment in the absence of any explanation or any documentary evidence, which is also established vide para no.3.6 of the assessment

order. Coming to the impugned order, we note from para no.1.3 that no

compliances were made by the assessee in response to four notices

issued by the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, considering the submissions of the

ld.AR and ld.DR and facts and circumstances of the case and in the

interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for his fresh consideration. The assessee is liberty to file

evidences, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, order of the ld.CIT(A) is

:-3-: ITA No: 4249/Chny/2026

set aside and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 26th October, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 26.10.2026 JPV 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 by PRASANNA PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.10.28 09:37:53 +05'30'

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →