MUTHUSAMY SITHARTHAN,TIRUCHIRAPALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4337/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 October 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 134 days in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons to be bonafide. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. This decision was made despite the assessee's consistent non-compliance before both the AO and the CIT(A). The remand was granted on the condition that the assessee pays a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within 30 days. The assessee also provided an undertaking to represent the case before the CIT(A) without fail. If the assessee fails to appear, the CIT(A) is at liberty to pass an order based on the available material. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Muthusamy Sitharthan, filed an appeal against the order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2020-21. The appeal was filed with a delay of 134 days, which the Tribunal condoned after finding the assessee's reasons to be bonafide. The judgment notes that the assessee made no representation before the Assessing Officer (AO) or the CIT(A). The AO had issued several notices (u/s. 148, 144B, 142(1)) and letters, to which there was no compliance. The assessment was completed ex-parte. Similarly, the CIT(A) issued four notices, with no compliance from the assessee. The assessee's counsel requested one more opportunity.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 134 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, turning on the bonafides of the reasons provided by the assessee. 2. Whether the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, considering the assessee's consistent non-compliance before the lower authorities. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee's primary contention, as presented by the ld. AR, was a plea for one more opportunity to represent the case before the CIT(A). The assessee relied on the principle of natural justice and the interest of justice to seek this opportunity. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the facts indicate a pattern of non-compliance by the assessee with notices and opportunities provided by both the AO and the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144B,Section 142(1)

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. 4337/Chny/2026 िनधा$रण वष$/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Muthusamy Sitharthan, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income G2A, KVM Estate No.1, Tax, Pulimandapam Road, Circle -1(1), Melur, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli. Tiruchirappalli – 620 006. [PAN: AOSPS-8093-K] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. P. Thanagaraj, Advocate '(थ& की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, 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 20.01.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2020-21.

:-2-: ITA No: 4337/Chny/2026

2.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 134 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 134 days condoned.

3.

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

the assessee before both the authorities below. On perusal of the

assessment order dated 12.02.2025, we note that the AO detailed

opportunities given which is evident from para no.2 of the assessment

order, wherein we find there was no compliance at all with reference to

notice u/s. 148 of the Act, intimation for conducting assessment u/s.

144B of the Act, notice u/s. 142(1), no response to letter, no response

to show cause notice, centralized communication. Further, the AO

concluded the assessment in absence of any explanation filed by the

assessee. Therefore, there was no representation whatsoever made

before the AO in response to opportunities given which are detailed in

para no.2 of the assessment order. Coming to the impugned order, we

note that the ld.CIT(A) issued four notices, wherein no compliance

:-3-: ITA No: 4337/Chny/2026

whatsoever made by the assessee which is evident from para no.5 of

the impugned order, which clearly shows there was no representation

on behalf of the assessee before the AO as well as the ld.CIT(A) in

response to the notices issued by the said two authorities. The ld.AR,

Mr. P. Thanagaraj, Advocate, pleaded for one more opportunity,

Wherein the explanation offered is not acceptable, but however in the

interest of justice and facts and circumstances of the present case, we

deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) on a

condition of payment of cost of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the Tamil Nadu

State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras, within

30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall furnish the proof of payment of cost, the ld.CIT(A) shall satisfy with the payment

of said cost and proceed to adjudicate the issues on merits. We also

record undertaking of the ld.AR on behalf of the assessee that assessee

shall represent his case before the ld.lCIT(A) without fail, in case

assessee fails to represent his case before the ld.CIT(A), the ld.CIT(A)

is liberty to pass order in accordance with law taking into account material available on record. Thus, order of the ld.CIT(A) is set aside

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

:-4-: ITA No: 4337/Chny/2026

4.

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 PRASANNA by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.10.28 09:39:58 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →