VANAJA,TAMIL NADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 HOSUR, HOSUR TAMIL NADU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1345/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 July 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's mental agony due to personal loss and health issues, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Given that the original assessment was ex-parte, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, ensuring the assessee is provided a proper opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, failed to file her return of income for AY 2017-18, even after a notice under Section 142(1). Consequently, an ex-parte assessment order under Section 144 was passed, and penalty proceedings under Section 271F were initiated. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a significant delay of 1324 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned; whether the ex-parte assessment order is valid; and whether the matter should be remanded for a de novo assessment with proper opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 16.07.2025Pronounced: 21.07.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (in short ‘the CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 19.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2017-18.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. The assessee did not file his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 as (AY 2017-18) Mrs. Vanaja required u/s 139(1) of the IT Act. Notice u/s 142(1) dated 09.03.2018 was issued and served on the assessee requiring the assessee to prepare a true and correct return of income in respect of which she is assessable and to furnish the same as per the provisions of Income Tax Rules and Act, 1961. The assessee has not complied with the said notice. The assessee has not filed the return of income as per the provisions of section 139(1) and has also not filed the return of income on or before 31.03.2018, penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated separately.

3.

In the present case, there is a delay of approximately ‘1324’ days in filing of the appeal. While the assessee has acknowledged the delay in Form No. 35, and stated that out of ‘1324’ days, ‘870’ days fall within the Covid-19 pandemic period and during the rest of period, assessee has been suffering from mental agony on account of sudden demise of her husband & health issues and hence, we condone the delay of ‘1324’ days in filing appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Since the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine on account of delay, we find that the reasons given by the assessee is sufficient cause for condoning the delay and hence, we condone the delay and therefore, in the interest of justice we remand the matter back to the file of the AO for denovo assessment since the assessment order is also an ex-parte order passed u/s.144 of the Act. The Ld.AO who shall proceed for denovo assessment after providing (AY 2017-18) Mrs. Vanaja proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld.AO shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment proceedings as per law. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has also given assurance before the Bench that the assessee will prosecute the case diligently before the AO.

4.

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

Order pronounced on the 21st day of July, 2025, in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →