← Back to search

MARY DAISY(DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MR. BERLIN JOSPEH(HUSBAND),CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 10(6), CHENNAI

PDF
ITA 2964/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 December 20254 pages

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘सी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ के, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी इंटूरȣ रामा राव, लेखा सदèय के सम¢

BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 2964 & 2965/CHNY/2025
िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2014-15

Late Smt. Mary Daisy,
Rep. by Legal Heir
Shri Berlin Joseph,
No.334, Ranga Nagar,
Vaigai Street, Moulivakkam,
Chennai – 600 125. PAN: AXYPM 9412H

Vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Non-Corporate Ward 10(6),
Chennai.

(अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant)

(ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent)

अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Ms. Varshha Sridhar, Advocate

For Shri Y. Sridhar, CA
ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16.12.2025
घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, both dated 05.08.2025
passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

ITA No.2964 & 2965/Chny/2025

:- 2 -:
called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2014-15 &
2015-16. 2. At the very outset, we notice that First Appellate Authority
(FAA) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits. The FAA held that there is delay of 838
days & 538 days in filing the appeal for assessment years 2014-15
& 2015-16 before him and the assessee has not filed any petition for condonation of delay. In Form 35, assessee has stated the reasons for delay in filing the appeals before FAA was that due to health issues, he was unaware about the completion of proceedings and also time took for registering as legal heir. The FAA held that there is no sufficient cause and also proper explanation and reason and hence, dismissed the appeals in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeals.

3.

The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had expired in 2017 and the legal heir of the assessee i.e., assessee’s husband was also suffering from health issues and was not aware of the assessment order being passed in the case of his deceased wife. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee’s husband was having serious medical issues during the relevant period which prevented him to file the appeals on time before the FAA. Therefore, it was submitted that ITA No.2964 & 2965/Chny/2025

:- 3 -:
the matter may be restored to the file of the FAA so that the legal heir of the assessee can produce the necessary medical certificate which was omitted to be produced in support of his claim.

4.

The ld.DR was duly heard.

5.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The appeals filed by the assessee have been dismissed by the FAA in limine without condoning the delay of 838 days & 538 days in assessment year 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively. Admittedly, the assessee had not filed the condonation petition. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the FAA so that the legal heir of the assessee can produce the necessary medical certificate in support of his claim that he was suffering from health issues at the relevant period, which prevented him in filing the appeals on time. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that the matter needs to be restored back to the files of the FAA. Accordingly, we restore the matter to the files of the FAA. The assessee is directed to file a condonation application stating the reasons for delay along with necessary evidence before the FAA. If the FAA is satisfied with the reasons given for condonation of delay, he shall consider the ITA No.2964 & 2965/Chny/2025

:- 4 -:
issue on merits. The FAA shall afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before a decision is taken in this matter. It is ordered accordingly.

6.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th December, 2025 at Chennai. (इंटूरȣ रामाराव)
(INTURI RAMA RAO)
लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(जॉज[ जॉज[ के)
(GEORGE GEORGE K)
उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT

चे᳖ई/Chennai,
ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 16th December, 2025

RSR

आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant

2.

Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Chennai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR

5.

गाड[ फाईल/GF.

MARY DAISY(DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MR. BERLIN JOSPEH(HUSBAND),CHENNAI vs ITO, NON CORP WARD 10(6), CHENNAI | BharatTax