M/S. MADEENA CONSTRUCTIONS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-8)1), CHENNAI

ITA 3031/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 May 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1418 days due to the managing partner's severe illness. It directed the CIT(A) to verify the tax payment of Rs. 5,08,57,893/- which was claimed to be in excess of the tax payable (Rs. 4,65,49,181/-). If verified, the CIT(A) should admit the appeal and decide on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the order of the CIT(A) who dismissed their appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14. The dismissal was based on not condoning a delay of 1418 days and finding that the assessee had not paid the due tax on admitted income.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to medical reasons and whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal without verifying the tax payment made by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(4)(a),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA

Hearing: 13.05.2025Pronounced: 28.05.2025

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, (hereinafter referred

to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Chennai, dated 31.01.2024 for the Assessment

Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2013-14. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has erroneously dismissed

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 249(4)(a)

All 85 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(4)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →