PERIYAGOUNDER RAMASAMY,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3309/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 January 2026AY 2019-20Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)1 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 203 days. The assessee explained the delay was due to family and health issues, which were supported by medical reports. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the orders of the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee initially did not file their Return of Income for AY 2019-20. The case was reopened under Section 147, and notices were issued. The assessee eventually filed the return but faced assessment proceedings. A penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was also imposed for non-compliance with notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned? Whether the orders of the lower authorities, dismissing the appeal in limine, should be set aside?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 144B,Section 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: MS. PADMAVATHY S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 20.01.2026

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

1.

1. These captioned Appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)] dated 27.09.2025 (Pursuant to & 3309/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) PERIYAGOUNDER RAMASAMY (Vs.) ITO Ward 1(6) :: 2 ::

S.147) & 14.10.2025 (Pursuant to S.272A(1)(d) for Assessment Year 2019-20.

2.

Brief Facts of the case: The Appellant initially did not file his Return of Income. The case of the Appellant was reopened on the information that the Appellant had made cash deposits into various bank accounts during the impugned period. Notice u/s.148 were issued on 31/03/2023. In response to the Notice, the Appellant had duly filed his Return of Income on 14/04/2023 declaring an income of Rs.2,59,730/-. Notices u/s.142(1) were also issued on 21/08/2023, 24/11/2023 and 23/01/2024 and Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 09/10/2023. The Appellant filed responses to two of these notices. But the Assessing Officer, not being satisfied with the explanation and the materials filed by the Appellant, completed the assessment, by Assessment Order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 05/03/2024.

3.

Penalty proceeding u/s. 272A(1)(d) was also initiated for non- compliance to Notices. A penalty of Rs.40,000/- has been levied by Order dated 17/09/2024.

4.

Aggrieved Assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)]. The & 3309/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) PERIYAGOUNDER RAMASAMY (Vs.) ITO Ward 1(6) :: 3 ::

Ld.CIT(A) vide its order dated 27.09.2025 dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine as there was delay of 203 days in filing appeal. Penalty appeal was also dismissed ex-parte vide order dated 14.10.2025 on the basis of quantum order.

5.

Now, the aggrieved Assessee is in appeal before the ITAT, Chennai.

6.

Before us, the ld.AR submitted the appellant being a senior citizen has been facing family problems and health issues and hence could not file the appeals on time. The appellant does not stand to gain from the delay and the delay is not deliberate or intentional.

Hence, he prays for the condoning the delay. He further prayed for set aside the impugned orders to the file of ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

7.

Per contra, the ld.DR supported the orders of the authorities below and prayed for the dismissal of appeals of the assessee.

8.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that there was a delay of 203 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

The assessee has explained that the delay occurred due to family problems and health issues, and the same has not been & 3309/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) PERIYAGOUNDER RAMASAMY (Vs.) ITO Ward 1(6) controverted by the Revenue with any cogent material. It is well settled that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering the application for condonation of delay in the cases of health issues, particularly when no mala fide intention or deliberate negligence is attributable to the assessee and when substantial justice is at stake. We have also seen the entire Medical report which justifies the explanation of the assessee.

In the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 203 days.

Since the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order.

Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

& 3309/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) PERIYAGOUNDER RAMASAMY (Vs.) ITO Ward 1(6) 9. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 27th day of January, 2026 in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (प�ावती एस) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (PADMAVATHY S) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद*य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद*य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, +दनांक/Dated: 27th JANUARY, 2026. SNDP आदेश क ��त,ल-प अ.े-षत/Copy to:

1.

अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →