MARUTHANAYAGAM SARAVANAN, DINDIGUL,DINDIGUL V. ITO WARD-1 DINDIGUL, DINDIGUL

ITA 4055/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Maruthanayagam Saravanan, the appellant, who faced penalty orders from the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dindigul, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The penalties were initially not acknowledged by the appellant due to lack of awareness, as the orders were uploaded on the ITBA portal without real-time alerts. The appellant became aware of the penalties only after a phone call from the Income Tax office. Consequently, the appeals to the FAA were filed late, leading to their dismissal in limine by the FAA due to the delay. The appellant contested this decision, leading to the current proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837522 (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: 2015-2016
• 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: G. BASKAR; G. AKASH
• 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 Nos.: 4055, 4056, 4057 & 4059/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Maruthanayagam Saravanan, No.1/56F, Ponnagaram Adiyanoothu, Dindigul – 624 003. PAN: BZIPS 3318F Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dindigul. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri G. Akash, 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: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against four different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, all dated 04.12.2025 / 05.12.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4055 to 4057, 4059/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16. 2. At the very outset, we notice that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits. The FAA held that there is a delay of 202 days in filing these appeals before him and there is no reasonable cause for condoning the same. 3. On perusing the orders of FAA, we noted that the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay stating the reason that the assessee is unaware of the penalty orders being passed by the AO. The assessee, only upon receiving a call from the Income Tax office asking to pay the demand and penalty, become aware of the penalty orders being passed by the AO and immediately, took steps to file appeals, resulted in delay in filing of appeals before FAA. However, the FAA rejected the assessee’s request for condonation and dismissed the appeals of the assessee. 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee has not received the penalty orders passed by the AO. The penalty orders have been uploaded in the ITBA portal and since there was Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4055 to 4057, 4059/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: no real time alert, assessee was unaware of the penalty orders passed by the AO. The Ld.AR submitted that only on receipt of phone call from the Income tax office asking to pay the demand, assessee become aware of the penalty orders and appeals have been filed before the FAA. The Ld.AR further submitted that as regards quantum appeal, it is pending adjudication before the FAA. Therefore, the Ld.AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeals before the FAA may be condoned. 5. The Ld.DR supported the orders of the FAA. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The FAA had dismissed the appeals of the assessee by rejecting the assessee’s request for condonation of delay of 202 days in filing the appeals. 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 orders of FAA and remit the matter back to his file for adjudicating the issue on merits. It is ordered accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4055 to 4057, 4059/Chny/2025 :- 4 -: 7. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are 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 RSR आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Madurai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "