VENKATESH KUMAR PALANIVEL,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, INTL TAXN WARD, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1342/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 November 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be met if the assessee is afforded an opportunity to place its explanation for the delay before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation without adjudicating the substantive grounds raised by the assessee. The Tribunal found it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee is to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay, setting out the reasons and furnishing supporting material. The ld. CIT(A) shall consider this application independently, pass a speaking order, and if the delay is condoned, proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits, including grounds relating to reassessment validity and additions under section 69A. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the grounds or the sufficiency of the cause for delay, leaving these issues open for the ld. CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee, Venkatesh Kumar Palanivel, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi, against an assessment order dated 24.05.2024 for Assessment Year 2019-20. The assessment order, passed under section 147 read with section 144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, determined the total income at Rs. 71,68,652/- against a returned income of Rs. 5,34,083/-, leading to a demand of Rs. 99,99,724/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was filed with a delay. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to the delay, without considering the grounds of appeal on the validity of reassessment proceedings or the merits of the additions made. The assessee is now before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter requires to be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to enable the assessee to file an application for condonation of delay and have it considered in accordance with law? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and condonation of delay provisions). Assessee's contention: The assessee sought an opportunity to submit an application for condonation of delay and requested that the appeal be adjudicated on merits after the delay is duly considered in accordance with law. The assessee contended that an opportunity ought to have been provided to file an application for condonation of delay. Revenue's contention: The ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144C(3),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 25.08.2026

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the ld. CIT(A)”], in relation to the assessment order passed u/s. 147 read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), for the Assessment Year 2019–20. Venkatesh Kumar Palanivel Vs ITO Intl Taxn W 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment was completed u/s. 147 read with section 144C(3) of the Act vide order dated 24.05.2024, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.71,68,652/- as against the returned income of Rs.5,34,083/-, resulting in a demand of Rs.99,99,724/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay in filing the same.

3.

The ld. CIT(A), upon considering the issue of limitation, observed that the assessee had neither filed an application seeking condonation of delay nor established sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine as barred by limitation, without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee either on the validity of the reassessment proceedings or on the merits of the additions made in the assessment. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4.

The ld. Authorised Representative's submitted that the assessee seeks an opportunity to submit an application for condonation of delay and requests that the appeal be adjudicated on merits after the delay is duly considered in accordance with law. The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. CIT(A) shall proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits by considering the grounds raised by the assessee, including those relating to the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the addition of Rs.62,31,013/- u/s. 69A of the Act, as well as the other contentions raised in the appeal. Such adjudication shall be undertaken after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and after considering the material and submissions placed on record. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee or on the sufficiency of the cause for the delay. All such issues are left open for consideration by the ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the proceedings and comply with the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A).

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on the 02nd day of November, 2026 in Chennai. (इंतूरी रामा राव) (मनु कुमार िग"र) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद*य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यक सद*य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

SANDEE P KUMAR Date: 2026.11.06 09:55:30 +05'30' Venkatesh Kumar Palanivel Vs ITO Intl Taxn W चे"नई/Chennai, +दनांक/Dated: 02nd November 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS

आदेश क ""त,ल-प अ.े-षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant

2.

""थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड"फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →