Case Law Details
V. Babu Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai)
In a recent development, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai has passed an order that directs re-adjudication of the appeal filed by an individual assessee, V. Babu against the ACIT. The appeal was initially rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] due to a delay in its filing by the assessee. This case presents an intriguing scenario regarding the circumstances and reasons accepted for condoning a delay in the filing of an appeal.
In this case, the assessee had experienced a delay in filing his appeal before the CIT(A) due to the ill health of his authorized representative. Despite this reasoning, the CIT(A) rejected the appeal, stating that the appeal was digitally signed by the assessee himself. This led to the assessee’s appeal to the ITAT. The Tribunal, in contrast to the CIT(A), took into account the health situation of the representative and concluded that it offered a reasonable cause for the delay. Consequently, it overruled the CIT(A)’s order, directing the CIT(A) to condone the delay and re-adjudicate the case on its merits.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi dated 10.02.2023 for the assessment year 2007-08 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
