S 285 VENKATACHALAPATHI PACB,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2552/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 December 2025AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay convincing and sufficient, directing the CIT(A) to condone the delay and hear the appeal on merits for AY 2017-18. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal set aside and remanded the appeal to the AO for fresh assessment in light of a quantum order.

What were the facts?

For AY 2017-18, the AO added Rs.8,42,627/- on account of business income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 134 days. For AY 2019-20, the appeal was against a penalty imposed u/s.271AAC(1), and the CIT(A) dismissed it due to a delay of 214 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was justifiable, and whether the appeals for AY 2017-18 and AY 2019-20 should be remanded for fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 04.12.2025Pronounced: 08.12.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

1.

These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the different orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC)

Delhi [CIT(A)] both dated 14.08.2025 for Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2019- 20.

2.

Brief facts for AY 2017-18 are that the AO made an addition of Rs.8,42,627/- on account of business income. On further appeal to ld.CIT(A), & 2552/Chny/25 & 2552/Chny/25 & 2552/Chny/25 ITA Nos. 2551 & 2552/Chny/25 S285 Venkatachalapathi PACB S285 Venkatachalapathi PACB S285 Venkatachalapathi PACB S285 Venkatachalapathi PACB he dismissed the appeal in limine as there was delay of 134 days in filing appeal (after excluding Covid-19 period) before the ld.CIT(A).

Now, assessee in appeal before this Tribunal.

3. We have gone through the reasons as noted by ld.CIT(A) in its order at para 2 and find the reasons convincing and sufficient cause, hence direct the ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing appeal and hear the appeal on merits.

4.

For AY 2019-20, brief facts of the case are that the assessee instituted appeal before the ld.CIT(A) against the penalty imposed u/s.271AAC(1)of the Act. However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on account of delay of 214 days in filing appeal.

Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

3.

Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that quantum appeal for AY 2019-20 is already set aside by the ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 04.11.2025 [DIN & Order No.:ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082300443(1)] to the file of AO for fresh assessment. Hence, in the light of quantum order we also set aside and remand this appeal for AY 2019-20 to the file of AO to take a view as per law after concluding the fresh assessment. Ld. DR did not controvert the order of ld.CIT(A) in quantum.

& 2552/Chny/25 & 2552/Chny/25 ITA Nos. 2551 & 2552/Chny/25 S285 Venkatachalapathi PACB S285 Venkatachalapathi PACB S285 Venkatachalapathi PACB S285 Venkatachalapathi PACB 4. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08th day of December, 2025 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 271AAC(1)

All 1,211 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAC(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →