CHINNASAMY JOTHIMANI,ERODE V. ITO, WARD-2(1), ERODE

ITA 4036/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Chinnasamy Jothimani, the appellant, who contested the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which had dismissed his appeal in limine due to a delay of 561 days in filing the appeal against the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessment had included additions to the appellant's income, which he contested. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, citing the delay. The appellant argued that the delay was significantly affected by the Covid-19 pandemic and personal hardships, which were not adequately considered by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in M.Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V.Laxmi Narain Rao, held that the uncontroverted affidavit regarding the reasons for the delay should be accepted and thus remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 845991 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Chennai
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: M.Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V.Laxmi Narain Rao AIR 1973 SC 627
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V ASWATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR ERODE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”डी” Ɋायपीठ चेɄई मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCHES “D” :: CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.4036/CHNY/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chinnasamy Jothimani, 105, II, Pandiyan Street, Chennimalai, Erode – 638051. Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Erode. PAN: APVPJ5106J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Mr. S Sridhar – Erode Advocate Revenue by Ms. V Aswathy – JCIT Date of hearing 17/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 25/03/2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], Delhi passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2017-18 dated 07.04.2025. 2. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4036/CHNY/2025 [A] 2 “1) The Impugned Order is bad, erroneous and unsustainable in law 2) The Learned First Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the appeal by giving only one Hearing Notice thereby not giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to explain the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. 3) Without prejudice, the rejection of appeal by the Learned First Appellate Authority is bad in law and liable to be reversed, as even in that lone Hearing Notice dated 04/03/2025, the First Appellate Authority required the Appellant to file reply on merits of the case, thereby providing or creating an impression that the case was admitted on the ground of delay and was heard on merits, violating the principles of natural justice. [Copy of Hearing Notice attached] 4) Without prejudice, the First Appellate Authority also erred in not considering the reason cited in Form 35 for the delay and the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the impugned appeal and also that out of 561 days delay in filing the appeal, an overwhelming 513 days was covered by Covid Pandemic prevailing at that time as recognized by the Apex Court itself, thereby leaving a meagre period of 48 days to be attributed to the Appellant's cause. And for all other grounds of appeal that may adduced later, the Appellant humbly prays that the present appeal be admitted, the submissions be considered and justice be rendered.” 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that appellant is an Individual. The Return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-18 was filed on 30.03.2018 disclosing total income of Rs.3,73,980/-. Agaisnt the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Erode(herein after called AO’) vide order dated 27.12.2019 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, at a total income of Rs.8,71,196/-. While doing so, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,87,500/- being the cash deposits in Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4036/CHNY/2025 [A] 3 specified bank notes during the Demonetization Period for the alleged failure of the appellant to explain the source of the cash deposits. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.2,09,716/- under business income. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A) who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay by refusing to condone the delay of 561 days. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. The ld.Counsel submits that the ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal in as much as most of the period was covered by Covid-19 Pandemic and he further submitted that the appellant had explained the reason for delay before the ld.CIT(A) by stating that delay also occurred because appellant was mentally disturbed on account of illness of his child and also non-acceptance of the appeal in New Income Tax Portal. 7. The issue in the present appeal is whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in refusing the condonation of delay. Admittedly, the appellant filed a Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4036/CHNY/2025 [A] 4 petition seeking the condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay. 8. The averments made in the Affidavit seeking the condonation of delay in filing appeal before us remains uncontroverted by the ld.Sr.DR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V.Laxmi Narain Rao AIR 1973 SC 627, it was held that an uncontroverted affidavit shall be taken as an affidavit on fact. 9. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that the ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits. In the circumstances, we remit the matter back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of the issues in appeal on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (INTURI RAMA RAO) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; िदनांक / Dated : 25th March, 2026/ SGR, Sr.PS Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4036/CHNY/2025 [A] 5 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem. 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “डी” बɅच, चेÛनई / DR, ITAT Chennai. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. Printed from counselvise.com "