MANNANGKATTI ARUMUGAM,PUDUCHERRY V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

ITA 4134/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Mannangkatti Arumugam, a retired policeman, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The FAA had dismissed his appeal in limine due to a 63-day delay in filing, which the FAA did not condone. The assessee argued that his unfamiliarity with electronic procedures and lack of awareness of the assessment proceedings until contacted for recovery of demand led to the delay. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay reasonable and remitted the case to the AO for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for fair play and justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839095 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V. ASWATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: V. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; 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.: 4134/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Mannangkatti Arumugam, 122, Nesar Street, Isravel Nagar, Dhanvantry Nagar, Pondicherry – 605 006. PAN: AMZPA 8424F Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Puducherry. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri V. Meenakshi Sundaram, CA ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 18.02.2026 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 06.12.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2020-21. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4134/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. At the very outset, we notice that 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 63 days in filing the 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 had filed application for condonation of delay along with affidavit stating the reasons that the assessee is a retired policeman and is not fully conversant with modern technology or the procedures involved in faceless e-proceedings of Income-tax Department. Consequently, the assessee was not aware of the assessment proceedings or assessment order being passed by the AO and only on receipt of call from the income-office office for recovery of demand, assessee became aware of the order being passed by the AO. Immediately the assessee sought the assistance of a professional and filed the appeal, with a delay. However, the FAA dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that the there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. The Ld.AR before us submitted that the assessee is a retired policeman and is not conversant with electronic procedures of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4134/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: income tax proceedings and hence, could not effectively participate in the faceless proceedings. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee was unaware of the assessment proceedings before the AO and the order being passed by him. The assessee became aware of the assessment order only on receipt of call from the income-tax office for recovery of outstanding demand. Hence, there was a delay in filing the appeal before the FAA. The Ld.AR pleaded that since the assessee was unaware of the assessment proceedings, one last opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent his case before the AO. 5. The Ld.DR supported the order of the FAA. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We are of our view, the reason cited by assessee in its petition before FAA seems quite reasonable and hence, we condone the delay of 63 days in filing the appeal before FAA. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is not conversant with the faceless proceedings of income-tax and hence, the assessee could not represent his case before the lower authorities. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we of the view that the matter ought to be restored to the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4134/Chny/2025 :- 4 -: files of the AO. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish the required details and co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. 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 18th 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 18th February, 2026 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 "