CHINNASAMY GURUSAMY,COIMBATORE V. ITO, NCW-4(4), COIMBATORE

ITA 4075/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Chinnasamy Gurusamy, the appellant, who contested the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which had dismissed his appeal due to a 32-day delay in filing. The delay occurred because the assessee's authorized representative failed to communicate the assessment order's receipt date properly, leading to the late filing. The Tribunal considered the assessee's limited education and reliance on his representative, ultimately deciding to condone the delay and remit the case back for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837520 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V. ASWATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: S. SRIDHAR; REJECTING
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘डी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी इंटूरȣ रामा राव, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 4075/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Chinnasamy Gurusamy, 2, Kattoor Street, Kalapatti, Coimbatore – 641 035. PAN: AKGPG 6263K Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 4(4), Coimbatore. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 14.10.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2014-15. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4075/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. At the very outset, we notice that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits. The FAA held that there is a delay of 32 days in filing this appeal before him and there is no reasonable cause for condoning the same. 3. On perusing the order of FAA, we noted that the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay stating the reason that the authorized representative of the assessee handed over the assessment order to the assessee stating that he could not handle the case and later the assessee appointed new consultant, who later on filed the appeal. Since the assessee was unaware of the date of receipt of assessment order, the date of assessment order itself has been taken as the date of receipt and hence, there is a delay of 31 days. However, the FAA rejected the assessee’s request for condonation and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee is educated only up to school final and is working as a lathe worker. The assessee is unaware of the income-tax e-proceedings and has relied on his authorized representative for filing of appeal. The authorized representative after receiving the assessment order handed over the files to the assessee stating that he cannot handle the case since huge demand has been raised on account of sale of his ancestral agricultural Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4075/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: property. Immediately, the assessee appointed a consultant and filed appeal, resulting in a delay of 32 days. The Ld.AR submitted that the delay has occurred due to late communication of assessee’s authorized representative and hence, requested for condoning the delay. 5. The Ld.DR supported the order of the FAA. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The FAA had dismissed the appeal of the assessee by rejecting the assessee’s request for condonation of delay of 32 days in filing the appeal. In our view, the reason cited by assessee seems quite reasonable and hence, we condone the delay before FAA and also direct him to admit the issue on merits. Therefore, we set aside the order of FAA and remit the matter back to his file for adjudicating the issue on merits. It is ordered accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th February, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (इंटूरȣ रामा राव) (INTURI RAMA RAO) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 17th February, 2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4075/Chny/2025 :- 4 -: RSR आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Coimbatore 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "