MURUGANANDAM CHINNAIAH,CHENNAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, TAMBARAM,CHENNAI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ सी’ यायपीठ, चे नई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ी मनु कुमार िग र, ाियक सद एवं
ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद के सम
BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2530/Chny/2025
िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: 2022-23
Muruganandam Chinnaiah,
17/5, Golden Avenue, First Main
Road,
Keelkattalai (near Alamarathu School
Bus Stop), Old Pallavaram,
Chennai – 600 117. v.
The ITO,
Non-Corporate Circle-22(1),
Tambaram.
[PAN: ALJPM 5087F]
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)
( यथ/Respondent)
अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by :
Shri T.V. Muthu Abirami,
Advocate
यथ क ओर से /Respondent by :
Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
सुनवाईक तार!ख/Date of Hearing
:
20.11.2025
घोषणाक तार!ख /Date of Pronouncement
:
26.11.2025
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. 2
Thiru Venkateswara Agency
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.
3
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. (एस. आर. रघुनाथा)
(S.R.RAGHUNATHA)
लेखा सद(य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (मनु कुमार िग र)
(MANU KUMAR GIRI)
याियक सद(य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
चे नई/Chennai,
)दनांक/Dated: 26th November, 2025. EDN, Sr. P.S
आदेश क ितिल*प अ+े*षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ/Appellant
2. थ/Respondent
3. आयकरआयु/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore.
िवभागीयितिनिध/DR 5. गाडफाईल/GF