Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a Government School Teacher, filed appeals with considerable delay against orders confirming assessment and penalties. The delay was attributed to the auditor's illness, supported by medical certificates.
Held
The Tribunal held that the auditor's illness constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing appeals and that the assessee could not be blamed. The First Appellate Authority's refusal to condone the delay was not countenanced.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals against assessment and penalty orders can be condoned due to the auditor's illness.
Sections Cited
271AAC(1), 270A, 154, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA
आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the impugned orders passed by the First Appellate Authority dated 29.10.2025 against which assessee has preferred First Appellate Authority dated 25.09.2025, assessee has preferred and against the impugned order of the First Appellate Authority dated 25.09.2025 assessee has preferred ITA No.3480/Chny/2025.
to 3480/Chny/2025 (AY 2022-23) Elumalai Rajeshkumar :: 2 ::
First Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal in-limine without condoning the delay of ‘275’ days, which led to the confirmation of the rectification of assessment orders dated 22.08.2024 making addition of ₹3,36,01,861/-.
dismissing the appeal in-limine without condoning the delay of ‘309’ days confirming the action of the AO by levying penalty u/s.271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act”) amounting to ₹3,92,130/-.
Authority dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay of ‘303’ days by confirming the action of the AO levying penalty u/s.270A of the Act amounting to ₹2,12,14,240/-.
At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that for the relevant year under consideration i.e. AY 2022-23, the AO has made quantum assessment of ₹3,36,01,861/- by passing rectification order on 22.08.2024 u/s.154 of the Act by virtue of which he has rectified the original assessment order dated 16.01.2024. According to the Ld.AR, after passing the original quantum assessment on 16.01.2024, the AO has passed penalty order on 19.07.2024 u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act by to 3480/Chny/2025 (AY 2022-23) Elumalai Rajeshkumar :: 3 ::
levying penalty of ₹3,92,130/-. According to her, thereafter again the AO levied penalty u/s.270A of the Act to the tune of ₹2,12,14,240/- by order dated 24.07.2024. According to the assessee, he being a Government School Teacher not knowing complexities of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had handed over the aforesaid orders (supra) to his Auditor who promised to file the appeals. However, he came to know later that the Auditor was suffering from ill health, by virtue of which, he was bed- ridden/hospitalized, because of which, he couldn’t file the statutory appeals before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. In order to support the fact that the Auditor was bed-ridden/hospitalized, the assessee has filed the Medical Certificates, copy of which are placed before us. Even though, the assessee pleaded before the Ld.CIT(A) that the delay in filing of appeals against the quantum assessment ‘275’ days; appeal against the penalty levied u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act was delayed by ‘309’ days; and appeal against the penalty levied was delayed by ‘303’ days, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC by passing the respective impugned orders refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeals, without going into the merits/grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid actions, the assessee is before us pleading for condoning the delay, so that the First Appellate Authority would be able to decide the grounds of appeal in accordance to law. to 3480/Chny/2025 (AY 2022-23) Elumalai Rajeshkumar :: 4 ::
Per contra, the Ld.DR for the Revenue doesn’t want us to condone the delay. According to the Ld.DR, the assessee should be vigilant and reminded us that the Law doesn’t help the sleeping person. Therefore, according to Ld Dr, the First Appellate Authority rightly dismissed the appeals without condoning the delay. Hence, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to interfere with the actions of the First Appellate Authority.
Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the assessee is a Government School Teacher who had filed his RoI on 21.05.2022 which was revised on 21.07.2022 for AY 2022-23. ITR filed by the assessee was subject to scrutiny and the AO passed the assessment order on 16.01.2024 making certain additions. The AO is noted to have levied penalty on 19.07.2024 u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act to the tune of ₹3,92,130/-. Similarly, the AO passed order on 24.07.2024 u/s.270A of the Act levying penalty of ₹2,12,14,240/-. The AO is noted to have passed rectification order on 22.08.2024 u/s.154 of the Act by which he has rectified the assessment order dated 16.01.2024 viz by rectifying the computation income where it was mistakenly stated in original order as ‘nil’ in respect of the assessed income of ₹3,36,01,861/-.
The assessee is noted to have filed appeal against the action of the AO against the quantum addition emanating from the rectification order as well as the penalty orders with delay of around ‘300’ days. The First Appellate Authority/NFAC by different orders is noted to have refused to to 3480/Chny/2025 (AY 2022-23) Elumalai Rajeshkumar :: 5 :: condone the delay and held that the appeals to be not maintainable. The assessee has preferred these appeals before this Tribunal and brought to our notice the reason for delay. Having gone through the application/affidavit for condoning the delay as well as medical reports/certificates of the Auditor who was entrusted with the cases (supra), we find that the assessee can’t be blamed for not filing he appeals within the statutory period. The assessee is noted to have handed over the impugned orders of the AO [quantum assessment/penalty orders] to the Auditor but unfortunately the Auditor fell ill and was bed-ridden/hospitalized which prevented him from filing of appeals before the First Appellate Authority/NFAC which is a reasonable cause for condoning the delay. Therefore, we don’t countenance the action of the Ld.CIT(A) passing the impugned orders refusing to condone the delay. Hence, we condone the delay subject to payment of ₹10,000/- for each appeal to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within three (3) months of receipt of this order; and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the First Appellate Authority. In light of discussion, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the appeals back to the file of the First Appellate Authority with a direction to admit the appeals, provided the assessee filed proof of deposit of ₹10,000/- for each appeal, and thereafter, adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in to 3480/Chny/2025 (AY 2022-23) Elumalai Rajeshkumar :: 6 :: accordance with sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Act after hearing the assessee. The Ld.AR has undertaken to file all the relevant documents/written submissions in support of grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, which we expect him to diligently do and the Ld CIT(A) to pass orders in accordance to law..
In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 11th day of February, 2026, in Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (एबी टी. वक�) (ABY T. VARKEY) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �याियक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER