MANI SRIDHAR,CHENNAI vs. NON CORP WARD 1(6) CHENNAI-W/RANG (115)(91), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2670/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 November 2025AY 2020-20214 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, after hearing rival submissions and perusing the materials, observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 88 days in filing. The assessee had provided reasons for the delay, which the CIT(A) did not accept. The Tribunal, however, was of the opinion that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the AO for a denovo assessment. The AO was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to comply with all notices and furnish relevant details for fresh consideration. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mani Sridhar, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - Non-Corporate Ward-1(6), Chennai, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on TDS information indicating receipt of income of Rs. 1,16,34,363/- without filing a return. The AO passed an ex-parte assessment order, determining total income at Rs. 88,43,917/-, as the assessee did not respond to notices. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 88 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding on merits due to the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT has jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits when the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to delay in filing. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding it on merits and prayed for one more opportunity to substantiate its case before the AO. Revenue's contention: The Revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH

Pronounced: 28.11.2025

आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 31.07.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 15.01.2025.

ITA No.2670/Chny/2025 Mani Sridhar :- 2 -:

2.

The A.O based on the TDS information, reopened the assessment as the assessee has received income of Rs. 1,16,34,363/, but has not filed return of income. The A.O subsequent passed assessment order ex-parte assessing total income of Rs. 88,43,917/- as the assessee has not responded to the notices issued. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 88 days. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine.

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R.) of the assessee has submitted that Ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without deciding the appeal on merits. Therefore, it is prayed that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to substantiate his case before the A.O.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, has relied on the orders of lower authorities.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that there was a delay of 88 days in filing the appeal before him. The assessee explained the reason for delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the explanation and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Having considered the matter, we are of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time.

1.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the A.O for denovo assessment in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with all the notices issued by the A.O and furnish all relevant details for fresh consideration. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 28th day of November, 2025 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →