MURUGANANDAM CHINNAIAH,CHENNAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, TAMBARAM,CHENNAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay but found the assessee's explanation to be bonafide, considering the tax demand was paid and the assessee's unemployment. The Tribunal held that the appeal was infructuous.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against income assessed under Section 143(3). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 394 days in filing. The assessee claims the delay was due to health issues and misunderstanding, and that the entire demand has been paid.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable due to bonafide reasons and whether the appeal has become infructuous.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 29.07.2025 for Assessment Year 2022-23.
Thiru Venkateswara Agency 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee instituted appeal before the ld.CIT(A) against the income assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act. On further appeal to ld.CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on account of delay of 394 days in filing appeal.
Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Before the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that due to health issues, under misguide and misunderstanding of issues involved the delay has been occurred. As on 03.03.2024 full demand amount has already been paid by the assessee. Assessee submitted Form 68 vis email. Same time portal issue cropped up and transfer transition happened. It is not disputed that entire tax demand has been paid. Assessee was also under fear. The ld.DR relied upon the order of the ld.CIT(A) and pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal.
Though we some extent concur with the submissions of Ld.DR Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT, JCIT however, keeping in mind the entire tax demand paid and seeing the claims made in the return, we are of the view that assessee explanation is bonafide and cannot be faulted with. At present, the assessee is also unemployed. Seeing the totality of the circumstances, we find that the assessee has acted bonafidely while claiming deductions claimed under chapter VI-A.
Thiru Venkateswara Agency Hence, nothing is survived in this appeal hence infructuous. However, in other proceedings if any, a lenient view may be taken and the assessee’s bonafide may be taken into consideration.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.
Order pronounced on 26th day of November, 2025 at Chennai.
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
