Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against orders passed by the CIT(A) for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The appeals were directed against quantum additions and penalties levied under sections 271AAC(1) and 270A. The CIT(A) dismissed the quantum appeals for both years without condoning the delay in filing.
Held
The Tribunal found that the reasons provided for the delay were reasonable. The delay was attributed to the Accounts Manager quitting service and not handing over files, and the assessee's unawareness of the proceedings. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delays and decide the appeals on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned and the matters decided on merits.
Sections Cited
271AAC(1), 270A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी इंटूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद� एवं �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� के सम� । Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3554, 3555 & 3556/Chny/2025 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3557, 3558 & 3559/Chny/2025 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Raajendran Indira Raajendran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Z 189, 5th Street, Anna Nagar, Corporate Ward 2(3), Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [PAN:AAAPI2683M] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, CA ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These six appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate orders all dated 10.09.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 towards quantum addition as well as levy of penalty under section 271AAC(1) and section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for both the assessment years.
The ld. AR Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, CA placed on record a chart consisting AYs and respective details of penalty order. He submits that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the quantum appeal without condoning the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal for AY 2018-19. He prayed to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the issues on merits.
The ld. DR Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. CIT vehemently opposed the same and submits that if the Tribunal remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A), suitable cost may be imposed.
Having heard both the parties, we find that the ld. CIT(A) discuss the issue of delay in par 6 of the impugned order. It is noted that the reasons given by the assessee for the delay are reproduced in para 3 of the impugned order. On perusal of the said reasons, we note that the assessee contended that its Accounts Manager, who was handling the income tax matters quit from service from March 2023 and did not handed over the files of the assessee while leaving office. It was contended that the assessee was unaware of the income tax proceedings initiated by the NFAC Assessment Unit and the assessee came to know only on 31.05.2023 in respect of the notice under section 270A of the Act and immediately approached Chartered Accountant, who advised to file appeal before the first appellate authority. It was submitted that the said delay is neither wilful nor deliberate. On perusal of the said reasons, we find satisfied that the reasons given to the delay of 92 days are reasonable which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Therefore, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the issue on merits after affording an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee against quantum addition are allowed for statistical purposes. and 3556/Chny/2025 for AY 2018-19
The assessee also preferred appeals against levy of penalty under sections 271AAC(1) and 270A of the Act in and 3556/Chny/2025 respectively. Since we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay of 92 days and adjudicate the issue on merits, we also remand the penalty appeals to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and to decide the same taking into account the finding on merits in quantum appeal. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee against quantum addition are allowed for statistical purposes.
, 3558 & 3559/Chny/2025 for AY 2019-20 6. We note that for the assessment year 2019-20 also, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the quantum appeal without condoning the delay of 253 days in filing the appeal. Considering the reasons stated for the delay, which is reproduced at para 3 of the impugned order and satisfied on the reasons stated by the assessee, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits. Similarly, the penalty appeals preferred by the assessee also remanded to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and to decide the same taking into account the finding on merits in quantum appeal. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in the quantum appeal as well as against levy of penalty are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 21st January, 2026 at Chennai.