POONGAVANAM ELUMALAI, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD -9(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to a delay of 654 days, despite the assessee citing medical issues and submitting supporting records. The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice, decided to give the assessee another opportunity.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an individual, did not file a return for AY 2018-19. The AO received information about cash deposits and contractual receipts, leading to a reopened assessment. The assessee did not appear, and the AO made additions under sections 147, 144, and 69A of the Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal should be dismissed in limine due to delay, or whether the delay should be condoned and the appeal decided on merits, considering the reasons provided by the assessee and the principles of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & 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 (Appeals)/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 08.10.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.
The assessee is an individual and did not file a return of income for A.Y 2018-19. The A.O received information that the assessee has deposited cash to the tune of Rs. 1,08,99,000/- into the bank account during the demonetization period and contractual receipts Rs.3,09,375/- and commission Poongavanam Elumalai :- 2 -: receipts of Rs. 25,425/-. The A.O reopened the assessment and called on the assessee to furnish the various details. Since, the assessee did not appear nor responded to the notices, the A.O completed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, making an addition of Rs. 1,08,99,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act and an addition on account of estimated profit to the tune of Rs.27,21,432/- and undisclosed commission income of Rs.25,425/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A).
There was delay of 654 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held that the appeal is not admitted and dismissed in limine. However, the CIT(A) proceeded to decide the case on merits whereby he has confirmed the various additions made by the A.O.
We have heard the both the parities, perused the material available on record. We notice from the perusal of the order of the CIT(A) that the assessee had filed a petition for condonation of delay stating that the assessee is suffering from various medical issues and could not attend to his business regularly. It if further noticed that the assessee has submitted the medical record pertaining to the ailments of the assessee before the CIT(A). However, we notice that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that there is no sufficient cause. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to the assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice and fair play. Accordingly, we are remitting the appeal back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law considering all the grounds raised by the assessee. The assessee is directed to submit the required
Further, we also levy a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand only) in the appeal since considerable time and efforts have been spent by the Exchequer and for the reason that the assessee being delinquent before the lower authorities. The same shall be paid by the assessee to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 07th day of January, 2026 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026