Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer assessed income under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained money and investments, and initiated penalty proceedings. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee due to significant delays. The assessee, aggrieved by the dismissal, filed appeals before the ITAT, Chennai.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), stating that a party should not suffer for the default of their representative. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after granting an opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) should be condoned and the matter restored for adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 69A, 69, 271(1)(c), 271AAC, 249(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE MS. PADMAVATHY S & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
आदेश / O R D E R
PER BENCH
These captioned Appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against penalty orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)] all dated 01.11.2025 for Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2018-19.
-3387/Chny/2025 (AY 2024-15 to 2018-19) POOJA PRABHAKAR (Vs.) ITO NCW 15 (1) CHENNAI :: 2 ::
Brief Facts of the case: The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the income u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961 on account of unexplained money u/s.69A and unexplained investment u/s.69. The (AO) also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), and 271AAC. Similar additions and penalties are levied in other years.
During the Appellate Proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed all 5 Appeals on account of delay of 55 days, 108 days and 458 days etc., in filing the appeal before him.
Now, the aggrieved Assessee is in appeal before ITAT, Chennai.
At the outset, Ld. AR for the Assessee contended that assessee entrusted these cases to a Chartered Accountant to file timely appeals before the Tribunal. However, later she came to know that appeals were not filed in due time of limitation. Again, she contacted another Advocate at Chennai to get these appeals filed before the Tribunal.
Per contra, the Ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and pleaded for the dismissal of these appeals as there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing appeals as per section 249(2) of the act.
We have heard the rival submission and perused the records. It is well settled law that a party should not be suffered for the default committed by the Chartered Accountant/Advocate.
We also observed that before the Ld.CIT(A) a detailed statement of facts has been filed by the assessee wherein issues (AY 2024-15 to 2018-19) POOJA PRABHAKAR (Vs.) ITO NCW 15 (1) CHENNAI raised are contentious and substantial which requires consideration/adjudication on merits.
Hence, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in filing these appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the captioned penalty appeals afresh after granting proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Ld AR for the assessee also assured this bench that the assessee will prosecute all penalty appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) diligently and would file all relevant documents in the penalty proceedings, if any.
In the result, captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on the 27th day of January, 2026, in Chennai.