MANI SRIDHAR,CHENNAI vs. NON CORP WARD 1(6) CHENNAI-W/RANG (115)(91), CHENNAI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ ायपीठ, चेई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद" एवं ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम)
BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2670/Chny/2025
िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2020-21
Mani Sridhar,
No.2, Dream Castle,
Harichandra, 3rd Cross St.,
Cholamandal Artists Village,
Injambakkam,
Chennai 600 115. PAN: BGEPS 5900G
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Non Corporate Ward-1(6),
Chennai-W/RANG(115)(91),
Chennai.
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)
( यथ/Respondent)
अपीलाथ की ओर से/ Appellant by :
Shri Vikas, C.A HIथ की ओर से /Respondent by :
Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing
:
20.11.2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
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. Mani Sridhar
:- 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.
The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, has relied on the orders of lower authorities.
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 Mani Sridhar
:- 3 -:
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.
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.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 28th day of November, 2025 at Chennai. (एबी टी. वक )
(ABY. T. Varkey)
ाियक सद" / Judicial Member
(जगदीश)
(Jagadish)
लेखा सद" /Accountant Member
चेनई/Chennai, दनांक/Dated: 28th November, 2025. EDN, Sr. P.S
Mani Sridhar
:- 4 -:
आदेश क ितिलप अेषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ/Appellant
2. थ/Respondent
3. आयकर आयु/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem
4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF