NARESH KUMAR JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-5(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1559/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 February 2026AY 2012-134 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the appeal was filed with a delay of 1214 days and the assessee provided no explanation for this delay, despite being notified of the defect by the registry. Consequently, the appeal was barred by limitation.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return for AY 2012-13, and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) at a higher income after disallowances. The assessee accepted these additions but faced penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), which were confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of inordinate delay and lack of explanation from the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, D BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 04.02.2026Pronounced: 09.02.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (in short ‘CIT(A)’) dated 10.11.2021 for the assessment year 2012-13.

2 -: 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. The return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 was filed on 30.09.2012 disclosing total income of Rs.10,39,310/-. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer, Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 5(2), Chennai (herein after the ‘AO’) vide order dated 18.03.2015 passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) at a total income of Rs.14,86,472/- after making the following disallowance i. Disallowance of interest of Rs.1,25,100/- ii. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS on interest paid of Rs.1,45,674/- iii. Disallowance of expenses of Rs.1,76,388/-.

3.

The above assessment order attained finality as the assessee had chosen not to contest the additions. However, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act. In response to show-cause notice, the assessee submitted that the additions made in the assessment were accepted with a view to purchase peace from the Department and had further, contented that there was no intention to evade any tax and the assessee is not guilty of concealing the particulars of income.

4.

Being aggrieved by the levy of penalty in the above penalty order, appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.

5.

Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us in the present appeal. When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of assessee despite due service of notice of hearing of appeal. Neither was there a petition seeking adjournment from hearing of appeal. We find from record that the matter was adjourned at the instance of assessee on more than eight times. Therefore, after hearing Ld.Senior DR, we proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits.

6.

At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 1214 days in filing the present appeal before us. The appellant neither filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before us, despite the fact that the Registry notified the defect. Therefore, it is presumed that the assessee has no explanation

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 9th February, 2026 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →