KARUPPANNAN RAMASAMY,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1,, NAMAKKAL
Facts
The assessee, an individual, did not file a return for AY 2013-14. The AO discovered cash deposits and payments to contractors and reopened the assessment, assessing income at Rs. 1,14,68,312/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions despite a delay of 161 days, which was condoned.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 556 days in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's senior citizen status and the recent demise of his son, who managed his tax matters. The Tribunal also noted that the facts for AY 2017-18 were identical to AY 2013-14.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal and remittance of the case back to the AO for fresh consideration on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND MS. PADMAVATHY.S
आदेश / O R D E R
PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 14.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.
The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for A.Y 2013-14. The A.O received the information that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 1,03,46,000/- into the bank account and also made payment to contractors to the tune of Rs. 65,96,613/-. The A.O therefore
ITA Nos.3180 & 3181/Chny/2025 Karuppannan Ramasamy :- 2 -:
reopened the assessment and passed an order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act assessing the income at Rs. 1,14,68,312/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay of 161 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) which was condoned by the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions made A.O for the reason that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).
There was a delay of 556 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, wherein it is stated that the assessee is a senior citizen and is not well versed with handling computers to get updates with regard to the income tax proceedings. It is also stated that the assessee's son who was handling the income tax matters of the assessee passed away and therefore the assessee was not aware of the appellate order being passed by the CIT(A). It is also stated that only when summons were issued, the assessee came to know of the appellate order and immediately filed the appeal. Accordingly, the assessee prayed for condonation of delay.
We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. Considering the fact that the assessee being a senior citizen and the untimely demise of his son, we are convinced that there is a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before us. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
ITA Nos.3180 & 3181/Chny/2025 Karuppannan Ramasamy :- 3 -:
We further notice assessee's son passed away in the same months in which the appeal was filed before the CIT(A) and therefore we see merit in the submissions of the assessee that the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of natural justice and fair play, we are remitting the appeal back to the A.O for considering the impugned additions on merits by calling for the required details and decide in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to file necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with the assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly. 6. From the perusal of the facts pertaining to A.Y 2017-18, we notice that it is identical to the facts of A.Y 2013-14. Accordingly, we remit the appeal for A.Y 2017-18 also back to the A.O with a similar direction.
In the result, appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2013-14 & 2017-18 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30th day of January, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (पदमावती यस) (Padmavathy.S) (George George K) उपा�� / Vice President लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 30th January, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S आदेश क� �ितिल�प 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
