SENGOTTUVEL SENTHILKUMAR,SALEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(6), , SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4250/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 October 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 973 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits. The assessee was granted liberty to file evidence in support of their claim and raise legal grounds. The reasoning was based on considering the submissions of both parties and the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was remitted for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sengottuvel Senthilkumar, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal was filed with a delay of 185 days, which the Tribunal condoned after finding the assessee's reasons to be bonafide. The CIT(A) had previously dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a delay of 973 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The original assessment had accepted the return of income, but the case was reopened, and the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by disallowing 25% of total nursery expenses. The assessee's primary contention for the delay before the CIT(A) was the lack of information regarding the completion of reassessment proceedings, as no notice was issued to the registered email.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 973 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and if so, should the matter be adjudicated on merits? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that there was no information about the completion of reassessment proceedings as no notice was issued to the registered email. The assessee's authorized representative (AR) prayed for the matter to be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, offering to furnish details regarding the addition made by the AO in the reassessment proceedings, especially since the original assessment was concluded under scrutiny. The assessee was ready to provide details and raise legal grounds. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue's representative (DR) reported no objection to the assessee's prayer for remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37

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. 4250/Chny/2026 िनधा$रण वष$/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sengottuvel Senthilkumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 220, Earikadu, Manjini Post, Ward 1(6), Attur Taluk, Salem Dist., Manjini B.O., Salem. Manjini, Salem – 636 141. [PAN: BQSPS-6766-G] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. S. Bhupendran, 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 10.11.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2013-14.

:-2-: ITA No: 4250/Chny/2026

2.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 185 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 185

days condoned.

3.

At the outset, it is noted that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of

the assessee in limine for non-satisfaction of reasons explained by the

assessee with reference to delay of 973 days. It is noted that the original

assessment was concluded accepting the return of income filed therein. The case of the assessee was reopened and the AO concluded, inter

alia, making addition u/s. 37 of the Act by adopting 25% on total nursery

expenses, which was challenged before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 973

days. According to the ld.CIT(A), the reasons explained by the assessee

are not acceptable and dismissed the appeal in limine. The reasons

explained by the assessee are reproduced in page no.3 & 4 of the impugned order and on perusal of the same, we note that the assessee

primarily contended that there was no information about the completion

:-3-: ITA No: 4250/Chny/2026

of reassessment proceedings as no notice whatsoever issued to the

registered e-mail.

4.

The ld.AR, Mr. S. Bhupendran, Advocate, prayed to remand the

matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for his fresh consideration by affording

one more opportunity to the assessee as the original assessment was

concluded under scrutiny and the assessee is ready to furnish details in

respect of the addition made by the AO in the reassessment

proceedings.

5.

The ld.DR, Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl.CIT, reported no objection.

6.

Heard both the parties and after considering the submissions of the

ld.AR and ld.DR and taking into account facts and circumstances of the

case 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 to condone the delay

of 973 days and adjudicate the issue on merits. Further, the assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of his claim as well as raised

legal grounds available under law. Thus, order of the ld.CIT(A) is set

:-4-: ITA No: 4250/Chny/2026

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

7.

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 09:38:34 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →