Case Law Details
C. Ramasamy Gounder HUF Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Introduction: In a recent case, C. Ramasamy Gounder HUF v. ITO, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai addressed a significant delay in filing an appeal against an assessment order. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, exploring the reasons for the delay, the tribunal’s decision, and its implications.
Detailed Analysis: The appeal filed by the assessee, C. Ramasamy Gounder HUF, contested an assessment order concerning the assessment year 2010-11. The delay in filing the appeal, amounting to 857 days, became a focal point of contention. The appellant cited reasons including non-receipt of notices due to a change in residence, compounded by the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The ITAT Chennai carefully examined the circumstances surrounding the delay. It noted that while 56 days of the delay occurred before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the remaining 801 days fell within the pandemic period. The tribunal emphasized the need for the appellant to provide sufficient cause for the pre-pandemic delay and acknowledged the exemption of the pandemic period delay as per Supreme Court orders.
The appellant, a senior citizen, asserted that the notices were not served due to the change in residence and age-related limitations. Furthermore, they highlighted their prompt action upon becoming aware of the assessment order. The tribunal deemed these reasons to be genuine and bona fide, qualifying as reasonable cause for the delay.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
