S. BALASUBRAMANIAN,POLLACHI vs. ITO, NCW-1(7), MADURAI
Facts
The assessee's appeals were dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) due to delay in filing. The assessee claimed the delay was due to being unaware of the assessment and penalty orders, as they were in a remote location and not conversant with digital communication.
Held
The Tribunal found the assessee's reason for delay to be genuine, considering the circumstances of remote location and lack of digital literacy. The Tribunal condoned the delay on the condition of a ₹20,000 payment to the State Legal Aid Authority.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) should be condoned given the assessee's circumstances, and if so, on what conditions.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3), 270A, 271B, 272A(1)(d), 271A, 144, 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & MS. PADMAVATHY. S
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 ::
Delay not Appeal No. & Quantum appeal & condoned by the Under Section Assessment Year Penalty appeal Ld.CIT(A) (no. of days) ITA No.3719/Chny/2025 & 147/144 Quantum appeal 340 AY 2018-19 ITA No.3720/Chny/2025 270A Penalty appeal 177 & AY 2018-19 ITA No.3721/Chny/2025 271B Penalty appeal 180 & AY 2018-19 ITA No.3722/Chny/2025 272A(1)(d) Penalty appeal 215 & AY 2018-19 ITA No.3723/Chny/2025 147/144 Quantum appeal 328 & AY 2019-20 ITA No.3724/Chny/2025 270A Penalty appeal 170 & AY 2019-20 ITA No.3725/Chny/2025 271A Penalty appeal 180 & AY 2019-20 ITA No.3726/Chny/2025 271B Penalty appeal 180 & AY 2019-20
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.
Sd/- Sd/- (प�ावती .एस) (एबी टी. वक�) (PADMAVATHY. S) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �याियक सद�य/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. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF
TUMMALACHARLA Digitally signed by TUMMALACHARLA LAKSHMI NARAYANA LAKSHMI NARAYANA Date: 2026.03.16 12:05:59 +05'30'
