SUDHAKAR VIJAYALAKSHMI,CHENNAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI

ITA 2802/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sudhakar Vijayalakshmi, the appellant, who contested the intimation and rectification orders passed by the Centralized Processing Center (CPC) regarding her income tax return for the assessment year 2021-22. The primary issue was the non-consideration of relief claimed under section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for which Form 10E was filed but not acknowledged in the CPC's processing of her return. The appellant's initial appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for want of prosecution. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's request for a personal hearing due to her lack of computer skills, which hindered her ability to file necessary documents and submissions electronically.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 824478 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LATCHANA
• Assessee Lawyers: S. MUTHU VENKATARAMAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Revised return; Rectification of order
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं सुŵी एस.पȧावती,, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Ms. S. Padmavathy, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2802/Chny/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sudhakar Vijayalakshmi, AP-30/1827, III Street Vasantham Colony, Chennai Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. [PAN: AAFPV3122K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward, Chennai 600 006. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Muthu Venkataraman, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Latchana, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 17.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 283 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.2802/Chny/25 2 Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed return of income for AY 2021-22 on 29.12.2021 declaring a total income of ₹.1,00,88,330/-. The assessee filed revised return of income admitting income of ₹.1,00,75,190/- with a tax refund of ₹.71,320/-. The assessee is stated to have filed Form 10E on 05.11.2021 claiming relief under section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] amounting to ₹.1,61,124/- against the salary arrears received during the AY 2021-22, but, however, it was not reflected in Income Tax Portal. The CPC processed the return and passed intimation under section 143(1) of the Act raising demand of ₹.2,00,980/-. Against the intimation order, the assessee filed rectification under section 154 of the Act dated 29.06.2022. The CPC passed rectification order under section 154 of the Act dated 09.09.2022 without considering the relief sought by the assessee under section 89(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.2802/Chny/25 3 4. The ld. AR Shri S. Muthu Venkataraman, Advocate submits that in order to claim relief under section 89(1) of the Act, the assessee filed Form 10E on 05.11.2021, but, however, the same was not considered by the CPC while processing the return as well as while passing rectification order under section 154 of the Act. He submits that non- filing of evidence/ written submissions before the ld. CIT(A) is neither wilful nor wanton, but, beyond the control of the assessee, being a retired employee, having no knowledge of computer operation. The ld. AR prayed to afford one more opportunity by affording personal hearing for furnishing the details/ explanation before the ld. CIT(A). 5. The ld. DR Ms. Latchana, JCIT, fairly conceded the submissions of the ld. AR. 6. Considering the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to afford personal hearing, enabling the assessee to substantiate her case by furnishing material evidence as the assessee is not well versed with computer operation. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.2802/Chny/25 4 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 31st December, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (S. PADMAVATHY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 31.12.2025 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "