ARPUTHARAJ RAJAN ARUN,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-1(1), CHENNAI

ITA 402/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Arputharaj Rajan Arun, the appellant, who contested an ex parte order by the Ld.CIT(A) which dismissed his appeal as non-maintainable due to a delay of 615 days in filing. The delay was attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's suo moto decision extending the limitation period. The appellant had initially filed his return under section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act, declaring a capital gain and subsequently received an intimation under section 143(1), which he contested. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument for condoning the delay, considering the pandemic's impact and the health issues faced by his auditor.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 708561 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: J. SAILAS
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी जगदीश, लेखा सद क े सम\u0015 BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.402/Chny/2025 िनधा\u000eरणवष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Arputharaj Rajan Arun, No.59/30, Aadijan Street, Mandaveli, Chennai-600 028. v. The ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-1(1), Chennai. [PAN: CUSPA 7810 E] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Ms. J. Sailas, Advocate \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.06.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/Addl/JCIT(A), Thane, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), dated 04.12.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as \"AY”) 2019-20. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order wherein the Ld.CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay of ‘615’ days in filing of ITA No.402/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) Arputharaj Rajan Arun :: 2 :: appeal and without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal raised before him, has dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is an individual who filed his return u/s.139(4) of the Act on 30.11.2020 offering capital gain of Rs.11,00,322/-. However, the assessee didn’t disclose in the return that he made re-investment to the tune of Rs.8 lakhs, because of which, the CPC while passing the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act on 03.04.2021, computed the total income at Rs.11,00,322/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the CPC, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on 07.01.2023 with a delay of ‘615’ days. Explaining the delay, the Ld.AR brought to our notice that the intimation order was passed on 03.04.2021 which event happened in the midst of Covid-19 pandemic. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken suo moto decision and condoned the period of limitation from 20.03.2020 to 31.05.2022. Therefore, according to the Ld.AR, when this period is taken out from ‘615’ days, then it works out to be only less than ‘200’ days, for which, the Ld.AR brought to our notice that the assessee came to know about the intimation only in the month of October, 2022 and thereafter, immediately filed the appeal within two (2) months. Therefore, pleaded for condoning the delay. 3. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to condone the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). ITA No.402/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) Arputharaj Rajan Arun :: 3 :: 4. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the CPC processed the return of the assessee and passed the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act dated 03.04.2021 which was in the midst of Covid-19 pandemic and has brought to our notice that Hon’ble Supreme Court had suo-moto had extended limitation period from March, 2020 up to 31.05.2022. Taking judicial notice of the same and also taking note that the assessee had filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on 07.01.2023, we find that the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) works out to be less than ‘200’ days. In this regard, we also note that the assessee had handed over the papers regarding filing of appeal to his Auditor, Shri K. Subramaniam, FCA, who suffered from the infection of Covid-19 and was hospitalized for long period, which fact is evident from perusal of the medical records filed before us. Thus, we are of the view that in such circumstances, assessee can’t be faulted for non-filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore, he can’t be penalized for unforeseen circumstances which led to belated filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we condone the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to his file for deciding the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee. The Ld.AR has undertaken to file all relevant documents before the Ld.CIT(A) in support of his grounds of appeal; and after hearing the assessee, order to be passed as per sub- section (6) of section 250 of the Act. ITA No.402/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) Arputharaj Rajan Arun :: 4 :: 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 15th day of July, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जगदीश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0001याियक सद\bय/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 15th July, 2025. TLN आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0010/Appellant 2. \u0011\u0012थ\u0010/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0018/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u0011ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF "