KAMAL BASHA NOOR ALI JASMINE,CUDDALORE V. ITO, WARD-3, CUDDALORE

ITA 3144/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Ms. Kamal Basha Noor Ali Jasmine against the order of the Additional/JCIT(A), Mumbai, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue was the delay in filing the appeal, which was initially dismissed by the FAA due to a 37-day delay without reasonable cause. The assessee argued that the delay was due to health problems and unawareness of the order passed under the new e-assessment scheme. The Tribunal found the reasons provided by the assessee reasonable, leading to the condonation of the delay and the remittance of the case back to the FAA for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831096 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.KAVITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S. GIRISH KUMAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘ए’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं सुĮी पɮमावती एस, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND MS PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 3144/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Kamal Basha Noor Ali Jasmine, 26, West Car Street, Chidambaram, Cuddalore – 608 001. PAN: AJCPJ 7381A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Cuddalore (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S.Girish Kumar Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22.01.2026 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the Addl./JCIT(A), Mumbai order dated 24.09.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3144/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. There is a delay of 341 days in filing these three appeals before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay along with the supporting affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reason stated by the assessee in the condonation petition is that due to multiple health ailments faced by the assessee during the pendency of appeal proceedings coupled with heavy mental and external pressure faced due to huge loss in business, the assessee was unaware of the appellate order being passed. Only on receipt of penalty order dated 08.10.2025, assessee was aware of the order being passed and took steps to file the appeal, resulting in the delay of 341 days. On perusal of the reasons stated in the affidavit, we are of the view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits. 3. 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 37 days in filing the appeal before him and there is no reasonable cause for condoning the same. 4. On perusing the order of FAA, we noted that the assessee in Form 35 filed before the FAA stated the reason for delay in Column Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3144/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: 15 of Form 35 that the assessee was not aware of the order being passed by the AO under the new scheme of e-assessment since assessee did not receive the manual notice or order passed by the AO. Only after login into the income-tax portal, the assessee could notice the assessment order and hence, the delay was occurred. However, the FAA rejected the assessee’s request for condonation and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In our view, the reason cited by assessee in its petition before FAA 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 CIT(A) and remit the matter back to his file for adjudicating the issue on merits. It is ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd January, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (पɮमावती एस) (PADMAVATHY S) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 23rd January, 2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3144/Chny/2025 :- 4 -: RSR आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Chennai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "