S. BALASUBRAMANIAN,POLLACHI vs. ITO, NCW-1(7), MADURAI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ यायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ी एबी टी. वक
, ाियक सद एवं
सुी पावती. एस., लेखा सद के सम
BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY. S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3719 to 3722 & 3723 to 3726/Chny/2025
िनधारणवष/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20
S. Balasubramanian,
No.1, Udumalaipet Road,
Pollachi-642 001. [PAN: AAIFS 6997 A]
v.
The ITO,
Non-Corporate Ward-(7),
Madurai.
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)
(यथ/Respondent)
अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by :
Mr. A. Arjunaraj C.A यथ क ओर से /Respondent by :
Dr.M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
सुनवाईकतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
18.02.2026
घोषणाकतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
13.03.2026
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
ITA Nos.3719 & 3723/Chny/2025 are quantum appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, both dated 06.10.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2018-19 & 2019-20; and other appeals of the assessee are against the penalty levied by the AO which appeals preferred by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) has been dismissed for belated filing of the appeals as shown in the chart below:
ITA Nos.3719 to 3726/Chny/2025
(AYs 2018-19 & 2019-20)
S. Balasubramanian
:: 2 ::
Appeal No. &
Assessment Year
Under Section Quantum appeal &
Penalty appeal
Delay not condoned by the Ld.CIT(A)
(no. of days)
ITA No.3719/Chny/2025 &
AY 2018-19
147/144
Quantum appeal
340
& AY 2018-19
270A
Penalty appeal
177
& AY 2018-19
271B
Penalty appeal
180
& AY 2018-19
272A(1)(d)
Penalty appeal
215
& AY 2019-20
147/144
Quantum appeal
328
& AY 2019-20
270A
Penalty appeal
170
& AY 2019-20
271A
Penalty appeal
180
& AY 2019-20
271B
Penalty appeal
180
2. At the outset, it is taken note from the grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee against the quantum added by the AO in the assessment order to the tune of ₹86,59,568/- for AY 2018-19 on the ground that the appeal was filed with a delay of ‘340’ days before him. Similarly, for AY 2018-
19, penalty imposed u/s.270A & u/s.271B & u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) has been dismissed for belated filing of appeals approximately by ‘200’ days.
Similarly, for AY 2019-20, the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the quantum appeal filed by the assessee against the additions made by the AO to the tune of ₹1,91,37,478/-. The other appeals preferred by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) against the penalty levied u/s.270A & u/s.271A &
u/s.271B of the Act has been dismissed for belated filing of appeals approximately by ‘200’ days.
ITA Nos.3719 to 3726/Chny/2025
(AYs 2018-19 & 2019-20)
S. Balasubramanian
:: 3 ::
The reason for the delay in filing of appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) as discernable from the records are that the assessee-Firm is doing business in remote place at Pollachi and the partners are not conversant with the computer & digital gadgets, because of which, it didn’t come to know about the assessment proceedings going on before the Assessing Officer (AO) which resulted in the AO passing ex-parte order u/s.144 of the Act (best judgment assessment) for both the assessment years. Only when the recovery proceedings were initiated against the assessee and the assessee was alerted by a telephone call from the Office of the Income Tax Department, the assessee came to know that the AO has passed orders on 06.03.2024 & 18.03.2024 for both the assessment years. And then, the partner of assessee went to Coimbatore and handed over the assessment orders for filing before the Ld.CIT(A) and the same were filed on 12.03.2025 with a delay of ‘340’ days & ‘328’ days respectively. Similarly, the assessee was not aware of the penalty orders passed against it, and after coming to know about the quantum additions made for AY 2018-19 & AY 2019-20, they came to know about penalty being imposed on it; and immediately thereafter has filed the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) who was pleased to dismiss the appeals without condoning the delay of 177-215 days. From the averments made and the considering the relevant facts, we find that assessee has not responded to any of the notices issued by the AO including notice of reopening issued
ITA Nos.3719 to 3726/Chny/2025
(AYs 2018-19 & 2019-20)
S. Balasubramanian
:: 4 ::
u/s.148/142(1)/144 of the Act. The notices issued electronically to assessee were not responded, obviously because partners were not conversant with the internet/computers as noted supra. Considering the fact that notices were issued to the assessee electronically rather than by Post and there is no proof of communication of notices, assessment orders or penalty orders by post, and considering that assessee hails from remote village, it is presumed that assessee was in dark about the ongoing assessment proceedings, hence cannot be faulted for prompt filing of appeal, when it was not aware of the existence of such orders.
The reason provided by the assessee is seen to be genuine and not fabricated since assessee doesn’t gain by not appearing before the assessing officer or participate in the assessment proceedings or filing the appeals within the time. Hence, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing of appeals provided the assessee remit ₹20,000/- (consolidated amount) to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within three (3) months of receipt of this order; and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the AO. Since the AO is noted to have passed ex-parte orders, without hearing the assessee, for the interest of justice and fair play and considering the fact that the assessee didn’t get proper opportunity for presenting its cases before the AO, by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN
Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), we set aside the ITA Nos.3719 to 3726/Chny/2025
(AYs 2018-19 & 2019-20)
S. Balasubramanian
:: 5 ::
impugned orders of Ld CIT(A) and restore the assessments for both relevant AY’s back to the file of AO for fresh assessment in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. The Ld AR has undertaken to file written submission/documents to substantiate its case before the AO which we expect the Ld AR of assessee to diligently comply without fail. The AO to frame de-novo assessment for both AY’s in accordance to law.
4. In the light of the foregoing, having set aside the quantum assessment back to the file of the AO for fresh assessment, the penalty appeals filed by the assessee are infructuous and hence, the AO to take a call for initiation of penalty after the assessments have been framed for both the assessment years.
5. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 13th day of March, 2026, in Chennai. (पावती .एस)
(PADMAVATHY. S)
लेखा सदय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबी टी. वक
)
(ABY T. VARKEY)
याियक सदय/JUDICIAL MEMBER
चे ई/Chennai,
!दनांक/Dated: 13th March, 2026. TLN
आदेश क ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ/Appellant
2. थ/Respondent
3. आयकरआयु/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore.
4. िवभागीयितिनिध/DR
5. गाडफाईल/GF
TUMMALACHARLA
LAKSHMI NARAYANA
Digitally signed by TUMMALACHARLA
LAKSHMI NARAYANA
Date: 2026.03.16 12:05:59 +05'30'