ARPUTHARAJ RAJAN ARUN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 402/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 July 2025AY 2019-20Bench: him, has dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is an individual who filed his return under Section 139(4) of the Act on 30.11.2020 offering capital gain of Rs.11,00,322/-. However, the assessee didn't disclose in the return that he made re-investment to the tune of Rs.8 lakhs, because of which, the CPC while passing the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act on 03.04.2021, computed the total income at Rs.11,00,322/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid a4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the delay was significantly covered by the Supreme Court's suo moto extension of limitation during the Covid-19 pandemic. The remaining delay was attributed to the assessee's auditor being hospitalized due to Covid-19. The Tribunal condoned the delay, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes, and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return under Section 139(4) reporting capital gains but failed to disclose a re-investment of Rs.8 lakhs. The CPC, through an intimation under Section 143(1), computed total income without considering the re-investment. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 615 days, which the CIT(A) dismissed as non-maintainable without condoning the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the illness of the assessee's auditor.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(4),Section 143(1),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 19.06.2025Pronounced: 15.07.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/Addl/JCIT(A), Thane, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), dated 04.12.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2019-20.

2.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order wherein the Ld.CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay of ‘615’ days in filing of appeal and without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal raised before him, has dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is an individual who filed his return u/s.139(4) of the Act on 30.11.2020 offering capital gain of Rs.11,00,322/-. However, the assessee didn’t disclose in the return that he made re-investment to the tune of Rs.8 lakhs, because of which, the CPC while passing the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act on 03.04.2021, computed the total income at Rs.11,00,322/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the CPC, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on 07.01.2023 with a delay of ‘615’ days. Explaining the delay, the Ld.AR brought to our notice that the intimation order was passed on 03.04.2021 which event happened in the midst of Covid-19 pandemic. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken suo moto decision and condoned the period of limitation from 20.03.2020 to 31.05.2022. Therefore, according to the Ld.AR, when this period is taken out from ‘615’ days, then it works out to be only less than ‘200’ days, for which, the Ld.AR brought to our notice that the assessee came to know about the intimation only in the month of October, 2022 and thereafter, immediately filed the appeal within two (2) months. Therefore, pleaded for condoning the delay.

3. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to condone the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

4. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the CPC processed the return of the assessee and passed the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act dated 03.04.2021 which was in the midst of Covid-19 pandemic and has brought to our notice that Hon’ble Supreme Court had suo-moto had extended limitation period from March, 2020 up to 31.05.2022. Taking judicial notice of the same and also taking note that the assessee had filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on 07.01.2023, we find that the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)

1. works out to be less than ‘200’ days. In this regard, we also note that the assessee had handed over the papers regarding filing of appeal to his Auditor, Shri K. Subramaniam, FCA, who suffered from the infection of Covid-19 and was hospitalized for long period, which fact is evident from perusal of the medical records filed before us. Thus, we are of the view that in such circumstances, assessee can’t be faulted for non-filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore, he can’t be penalized for unforeseen circumstances which led to belated filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we condone the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to his file for deciding the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee. The Ld.AR has undertaken to file all relevant documents before the Ld.CIT(A) in support of his grounds of appeal; and after hearing the assessee, order to be passed as per sub- section (6) of section 250 of the Act.

More judgments on Section 139(4)

All 902 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →