NARESH KUMAR JAIN,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-5(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1559/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Naresh Kumar Jain against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was imposed following the disallowance of certain expenses and interest in the assessee's income tax return for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee had initially accepted the additions made during the assessment but later contested the penalty, arguing there was no intention to evade tax. However, the tribunal dismissed the appeal primarily due to the significant delay in filing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 835426 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM S. MUKUNDAN
• Keywords: TDS

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘डी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी इंटूरȣ रामा राव, लेखा सदèय एवं ᮰ी मनु कुमार िगᳯर, ᭠याियक सद᭭य क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1559/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Naresh Kumar Jain, No.33, Venkaiyer Street, Kondithope, Chennai – 600 079. PAN: AAPPN 0443B Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 5(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : None ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Gautam S. Mukundan, JCIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.02.2026 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 09.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (in short ‘CIT(A)’) dated 10.11.2021 for the assessment year 2012-13. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1559/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. The return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 was filed on 30.09.2012 disclosing total income of Rs.10,39,310/-. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer, Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 5(2), Chennai (herein after the ‘AO’) vide order dated 18.03.2015 passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) at a total income of Rs.14,86,472/- after making the following disallowance i. Disallowance of interest of Rs.1,25,100/- ii. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS on interest paid of Rs.1,45,674/- iii. Disallowance of expenses of Rs.1,76,388/-. 3. The above assessment order attained finality as the assessee had chosen not to contest the additions. However, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act. In response to show-cause notice, the assessee submitted that the additions made in the assessment were accepted with a view to purchase peace from the Department and had further, contented that there was no intention to evade any tax and the assessee is not guilty of concealing the particulars of income. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1559/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: However, the AO rejected the above explanation had proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs.1,38173/- vide order dated 29.09.2015 u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the levy of penalty in the above penalty order, appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 5. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us in the present appeal. When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of assessee despite due service of notice of hearing of appeal. Neither was there a petition seeking adjournment from hearing of appeal. We find from record that the matter was adjourned at the instance of assessee on more than eight times. Therefore, after hearing Ld.Senior DR, we proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits. 6. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 1214 days in filing the present appeal before us. The appellant neither filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before us, despite the fact that the Registry notified the defect. Therefore, it is presumed that the assessee has no explanation Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1559/Chny/2025 :- 4 -: for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is barred by limitation and dismissed in-limine on the grounds of delay. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 9th February, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु क ुमार ͬगǐर) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER (इंटूरȣ रामा राव) (INTURI RAMA RAO) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 9th 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 "