DAMODHARAN VINODH KUMAR,TIRUVALLUR vs. ITO, NCW-7(3), CHENNAI
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. The assessee, a salaried employee with no taxation expertise, faced a delay of 224 days in filing the appeal due to issues tracking electronic notices.
Held
The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the delay, considering the assessee's circumstances. It was deemed proper to afford another opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is condonable and whether the grounds raised by the assessee should be allowed.
Sections Cited
Section 5.1 to 5.2.3 of the impugned order
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3795/Chny/2025 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Damodharan Vinodh Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 312, Bougainvillea Flora Non Corporate Ward 7(3), Apartments, Pattabi, Pattabiram, Chennai. Tiruvallur 600 072. [PAN:AHCPV6672N] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Hitesh, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 25.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2020-21.
At the outset, the ld. AR Shri Hitesh, Advocate submits that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2020-21. He prayed to remand the matter to the file of the
2 I.T.A. No.3795/Chny/25
ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the issue on merits.
The ld. DR Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT vehemently opposed the same and submits that if the Tribunal remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A), suitable cost may be imposed.
Having heard both the parties and we find that the ld. CIT(A) discussed the issue of delay in para 5.1 to 5.2.3 of the impugned order. It is noted that the reasons given by the assessee for the delay of 224 days in filing the appeal are reproduced under para 5 of the impugned order. On perusal of the same, we note that the assessee is a salaried employee earning a monthly income of ₹.35,000/- working in back office, has no expertise in taxation matter and having no knowledge and lack of proper guidance, he could not effectively track the electronic notices served through the income tax portal and email. We find that there is reasonable cause for the delay involved in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, taking into the consideration of the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to afford one more opportunity and remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits afresh after considering the written submissions/ documentary evidences as may be
3 I.T.A. No.3795/Chny/25
filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 25th February, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 25.02.2026 Vm/- आदेश की �ितिलिप 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.
