S 285 VENKATACHALAPATHI PACB,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), SALEM
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ यायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ीमनु कुमार िग र, ाियक सद एवं
ीएस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखासदकेसम
BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.2551 &2552/Chny/2025
िनधारणवष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 &2019-20
S285 Venkatachalapathi PACB,
Muthunackenpatty, Omalur,
Salem 636 455. v.
The ITO,
Ward-1(2),
Salem.
[PAN:AAEAS8632B]
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)
(यथ/Respondent)
अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by :
Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman,
F.C.A. (Virtual)
यथ क ओर से /Respondent by :
Mr.Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT
सुनवाईकतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
04.12.2025
घोषणाकतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
08.12.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:
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),
ITA Nos. 2551 & 2552/Chny/25
ITA Nos. 2551 & 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.
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.
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.
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. ITA Nos. 2551 & 2552/Chny/25 ITA Nos. 2551 & 2552/Chny/25 ITA Nos. 2551 & 2552/Chny/25 S285 Venkatachalapathi PACB S285 Venkatachalapathi PACB S285 Venkatachalapathi PACB S285 Venkatachalapathi PACB
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. (एस. आर. रघुनाथा)
(S.R.RAGHUNATHA)
लेखासदय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (मनुकुमारिग र)
(MANU KUMAR GIRI)
याियकसदय/JUDICIAL MEMBER
चे ई/Chennai,
!दनांक/Dated: 08th December, 2025. TLN
आदेशकितिलिपअ&ेिषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ/Appellant
2. थ/Respondent
3. आयकरआयु/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore.
िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडफाईल/GF