SETHURAMALINGAM PACKIARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. CIT (A), CHENNAI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ायपीठ, चेई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ीजॉज जॉज के, उपा एवंी जगदीश, लेखा सद( के सम
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2219/Chny/2025
िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2018-19
Sethuramalingam Packiarajan,
5b, Jaganathan Street,
Kottivakkam, Tiruvanmiyur,
Palavakkam S.O (Kanchipuram),
Chennai – 600 041. PAN: APAPP 9702K
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Non Corporate Ward-17(2),
Chennai.
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)
( यथ/Respondent)
अपीलाथG की ओर से/ Appellant by :
Ms. Manjusha.B, C.A IJथG की ओर से /Respondent by :
Shri Shiva Srinvas, CIT
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing
:
22.10.2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
30.10.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 06.08.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 28.03.2024. Sethuramalingam Packiarajan
:- 2 -:
There is a delay of 281 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. We have considered the petition/affidavit of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is hereby condoned. 3. The assessee is an individual and has not filed the return of income for the relevant assessment year. The A.O on the basis of information that the assessee had purchased immovable property valued at Rs. 1,44,00,000/- and salary to employees of Rs. 36,68,377/- but has not filled return of income reopened the assessment. The A.O thereafter completed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, assessing total income of Rs. 72,71,474/- as the assessee had failed to file the return of income as well as the details called for. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 21 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 raised the issue of juri iction and has also submitted that Ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without deciding the appeal Sethuramalingam Packiarajan
:- 3 -:
on merits. The Ld. AR submitted that that there was sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal and therefore prayed that Ld. CIT(A) may be directed to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits, in the interest of justice .
4. The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. D.R) relied on the orders of the lower authorities and requested that the appeal be dismissed.
5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that there was a delay of 21 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee explained that the delay in filing the appeal was due to medical reasons. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the explanation and dismissed the appeal in limine. Before us, the Ld. A.R also raised a ground relating to juri iction, stating that the assessment had been reopened by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer. We have given careful consideration to the matter and are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the appeal on merits in the interest of justice. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on merits, including
Sethuramalingam Packiarajan
:- 4 -:
the juri ictional ground raised by the assessee, 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 Ld. CIT(A) 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 30th day of October, 2025 at Chennai. (जॉज जॉज के)
(George George K)
उपा / Vice President
(जगदीश)
(Jagadish)
लेखा
लेखा
लेखा
लेखा सदय
सदय
सदय
सदय /Accountant Member
चेनई/Chennai, दनांक/Dated: 30th October, 2025. EDN, Sr. P.S
आदेश क ितिल प अ े षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ/Appellant
2. थ/Respondent
3. आयकर आयु/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem
4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF