VENUS TEXTILES,KARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 KARUR, KARUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3608/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 January 2026AY 2017-18Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member), Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member)1 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 noted that the CIT(A) rightly held that there was no sufficient cause made out by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal, except for lack of awareness.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 683 days against a penalty order under section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay, citing lack of sufficient cause and referencing the Supreme Court decision in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and ought to be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 21.01.2026Pronounced: 27.01.2026

O R D E R

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The ld. AR Shri S. Anandh, Advocate submits that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay and no adjudication on merits. He prayed to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the issue on merits.

3.

The ld. DR Shri SBR Kumar Laghimshetti, Addl. CIT vehemently opposed the same.

4.

Having heard both the parties, we note that the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 683 days challenging the action of the Assessing Officer in imposing penalty of ₹.5,000/- under section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] vide order dated 02.09.2022. The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty order with a delay of 683 days before the ld. CIT(A) by giving reasons for the delay, which are reproduced in para 3 of the impugned order. According to the ld. CIT(A), there was no sufficient cause made out by the assessee and taking into account the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556 to 558, rejected the reasons stated for condonation of delay. On perusal of the reasons in para 2.3 of the impugned order, we note that the ld. CIT(A) rightly held that there was no sufficient cause made out in showing what really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time except lack of awareness.

Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and it is justified. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 27th January, 2026 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 271F

All 927 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →