V.KASTURI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice, considering the assessee's age and health condition. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for adjudication on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 151 days. The assessee, a 73-year-old senior citizen suffering from breast cancer, explained the delay was due to medical treatments and hospitalizations.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to the assessee's medical condition and age.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SANJAY ARORA & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
आदेश / O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai, in ITA No.
93/CIT(A)-5/15-16 dated 18.10.2016 for the AY 2013-14 against the levy of penalty u/s.271B.
ITA No.4/Mds/2017 :- 2 -:
Shri N.Gopikrishna, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri K.Ravi, Adv. represented on behalf of the assessee.
It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal on account of the delay of 151 days. It was a submission that the assessee’s appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was delayed by 151 days and the delay was specifically explained in so far as the assessee had specifically intimated that the assessee is a senior citizen of 73 years and was not keeping good health and was also suffering from breast cancer and hospitalized every now and then for treatment. It was a submission that only on account of the various medications and the treatment that the assessee has to undergo, the delay has occurred. It was a prayer that the delay may be condoned and the issues in this appeal to be restored to the file of the AO for adjudication on merits.
In reply, the Ld.DR did not raise any serious objections.
We have considered the rival submissions. Considering the fact that the assessee is a senior citizen and also suffering from breast cancer and hospitalized off and on, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the appeal is liable to be condoned and we do so. In these circumstances, the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) stands condoned and the issues in this appeal is restored to the file of the AO for adjudication on merits.
ITA No.4/Mds/2017 :- 3 -:
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on September 05, 2017, at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 271B
- Devayatbhai Kalotara, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, RajkotITA 679/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2867/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2866/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2865/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2864/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026