JAGANNATHAN KRISHNAVENI,THANJAVUR V. ITO, WARD-1, KUMBAKONAM

ITA 3617/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jagannathan Krishnaveni, the appellant, who did not initially file a return of income for the assessment year 2019-20. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened the assessment due to the purchase of immovable property and added Rs.7,63,485 as unexplained investments under section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 201 days, which the CIT(A) did not condone. The appellant then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which found sufficient cause for the delay and remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840925 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M.D. VIJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: N. ARJUN RAJ
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ ा यपीठ, चे\u0012ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0015ी एबी टी. वक\u0019, ा ियक सद एवं सु\u0015ी पदमा वती यस, लेखा सद क े सम\" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 3617/Chny/2025 िनधा $रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Jagannathan Krishnaveni, 373, Sagaji Nayakkan Thoppu, Perumandi Melacauvery,Kumbakonam Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu-612002 PAN: ALTPK 8311Q Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kumbakonam (अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant) (\b यथ\u0007/Respondent) अपीला थ\u0019 की ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ()थ\u0019 की ओर से /Respondent by : Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT सुनवा ई की ता रीख/Date of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा की ता रीख /Date of Pronouncement : 25.02.2026 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 20.08.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. 2. The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income. The assessing officer (AO) reopened the assessment for the reason that the assessee has purchased immovable property during the year under consideration. Since the assessee did not file the return of income the AO Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3617/Chny/2025 Jagannathan Krishnaveni :- 2 -: reopened the assessment. The assessee submitted before the AO that he has availed loan from SBI bank which has been utilised for the purchase of the immovable property. Since the assessee did not furnished any further details the assessing officer concluded the assessment by making an addition of Rs.7,63,485 under section 69B of the act as unexplained investments. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay of 201 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee is in appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is delay of the 31 days in filing the appeal before the tribunal and the assessee filed the petition seeking condonation of delay. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay of in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is from a rural area and does not have any technical knowledge to access computers. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee therefore is completely dependent on counsel with regard to income tax matters who did not handle assessee's case properly. Accordingly the Ld. AR submitted that there is a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Considering the facts and circumstances unique to the assessee's case, we are of the considered view that there is a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). We therefore remit Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3617/Chny/2025 Jagannathan Krishnaveni :- 3 -: the appeal back to the CIT(A) with the direction to condone the delay and consider the appeal on merits as well as the legal contentions raised by the assessee.. The assessee is directed to file necessary documents in support of the impugned additions made by the AO and cooperate with appellate proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly. 5. Further, we also levy a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten 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 AO. 6. In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 25th day of February, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वक\u0019) (ABY. T. Varkey) \u0001याियक \u0001याियक \u0001याियक \u0001याियक सद\bय सद\bय सद\bय सद\bय / Judicial Member (पदमा वती यस) (Padmavathy.S) लेखा लेखा लेखा लेखा सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य /Accountant Member चे\u0013नई/Chennai, \u0016दनांक/Dated: 25th February, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S आदेश क\u0019 \bितिल प अ े षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u000f/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय \bितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0018 फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "