MASUDHA BEGAM,PERAMBALUR V. ITO, WARD-1(1), TRICHY

SA 134/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Masudha Begam, the appellant, who did not file a regular return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information about a term deposit made by the appellant. The assessment was completed with additions for unexplained deposits, which the appellant contested. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay in filing, which the appellant attributed to illness. The Tribunal found the delay justifiable and remitted the case back to the NFAC for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826624 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: P.VENKATESAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3831/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2015-16 and SA No.134/Chny/2025, Assessment Year: 2015-16 Masudha Begam, D.No.55A/66F, New No.5A/66F, Perambalur Post, Madhanagopalapuram, Perambalur TK, Perambalur Dist, Tamil Nadu-621 212. [PAN: AYVPM2731M] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Trichy. Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr.P.Venkatesan, Advocate, Revenue by : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT Date of Hearing : 02.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, [‘CIT(A)’ in short], Delhi, dated 31.10.2025 for AY-2015-16. 2.0 The appellant is an individual and no regular return of income for the AY-2015-16 filed by the appellant. The AO formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax, based on the information the appellant made a term deposit of Rs.46,02,223/- during the previous year relevant to the AY-2015-16. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 09.04.2022. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3831 and SA-134/Chny/2025 Page - 2 - of 4 In response to the notice u/s 148, the appellant had filed return of income disclosing Rs.1,27,830/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by NAFC (herein after called Assessing Authority) u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act 1961 on 12.01.2024 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 at a total income of Rs.50,27,224/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs.46,02,223/- on account of unexplained term deposit and Rs.2,97,171/- on account of cash deposits. 3.0 Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal on the grounds of delay by holding that the appellant failed to explain the delay of 92 days in filing appeal before him. 4.0 Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5.0 The learned AR submits that the NFAC grossly erred in dismissing the appeal by holding that appeal is barred by limitation, in as much as, there was a sufficient reason for delay in filing before the CIT(A). On the other hand, the Sr.DR seriously objected for remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the issues in appeal on merits. 6.0 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) was Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3831 and SA-134/Chny/2025 Page - 3 - of 4 justified in dismissing the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the NFAC, it would be clear that the NFAC had refused to condone the delay on the ground that the appellant had failed to demonstrate the sufficient cause for delay of 92 days in filing of appeal. On perusal of the Form-35, it would be clear that the appellant has explained that the delay had occurred on account of illness of the appellant. The NFAC, even without making a reference to the explanation of the appellant, jumped into the conclusion that the appellant had failed to demonstrate the sufficient reason for the delay. Even before us, the appellant has filed medical certificate to show that the appellant was ailing from lumbar spondylosis. In our considered opinion, this would constitute the sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal before the NFAC and therefore we condone the delay of 92 days. The case laws relied upon by NFAC have no application to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we reverse the order passed by the NFAC and remit the matter back to the file of the NFAC for de novo disposal of appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 7.0 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3831 and SA-134/Chny/2025 Page - 4 - of 4 8.0 Since the appeal was disposed of by this tribunal, the stay petition No.134 / Chny / 2025 for AY – 2015-16 filed by the appellant becomes in fructuous and accordingly it is dismissed. Order pronounced on 5th , January-2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) Vice president (INTURI RAMA RAO) Accountant Member Chennai, Dated: 5th , January-2026. KB/- Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT - Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. DR 5. GF Printed from counselvise.com "