Muthaiah Ganapathy Rajaarunmozhi Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai)
Summary: The ITAT Chennai allowed the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes and set aside the CIT(A), Delhi’s order dated 6 May 2026 for AY 2023-24, directing condonation of a 315-day delay and adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine after rejecting the assessee’s explanation that serious chronic health issues prevented timely filing. Before the Tribunal, the assessee’s representative submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and sought restoration of the appeal, while the Revenue opposed the request on the ground that sufficient cause had not been established.
The Tribunal noted that the explanation concerning illness had been reproduced and considered by the CIT(A), but the assessment disputes had not been examined on merits. The supplied order records assessed income of ₹16,78,659 against returned income of ₹54,57,580 and refers to additions concerning unsecured loans, sundry creditors and disallowance of expenses; it also records that no evidence had been filed before the Assessing Officer. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal considered another opportunity necessary, directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the issues on merits, and permitted the assessee to file evidence before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) must consider that evidence and pass an order in accordance with law. The Tribunal did not adjudicate the validity of the additions or grant substantive deletion of the disputed amounts.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi for the assessment year 2023-24.
2. At the outset, it is noted that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine by the Ld. CIT(A) for non-satisfaction of the explanation furnished by the assessee with reference to a delay of 315 days.
3. The Ld. AR, Mr. Koushik Raja S., Advocate, submitted that the delay-condonation petition was filed before the Ld. CIT(A), explaining that the assessee was suffering from chronic health issues and, therefore, could not file the appeal within the prescribed time before the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. The Ld. AR prayed to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits.
4. The Ld. DR, Ms. R. Anita, CIT, vehemently opposed remanding the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay. She submitted that no sufficient cause was made out by the assessee to explain the huge delay of 315 days.
5. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, we note that the Ld. CIT(A) discussed the delay in paragraph No. 5 of the impugned order, wherein he reproduced the reasons explained by the assessee at page No. 3 of the impugned order. On perusal of the same, we note that the assessee contended that he was not able to file the appeal in time as he was seriously ill with chronic health issues and prayed for condonation of the delay. However, the Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the said explanation.
6. On perusal of the assessment order, we note that the AO determined the income of the assessee at Rs.16,78,659/- as against the returned income of Rs.54,57,580/-, inter alia, making additions on account of unsecured loans from others, sundry creditors and disallowance of expenses. Admittedly, no evidence was filed before the AO. As discussed above, there was no discussion on merits by the Ld. CIT(A), as he was not satisfied with the explanation offered for condonation of the delay.
7. In view of the same, in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee requires another opportunity before the Ld. CIT(A) to contest the issues on merits. Therefore, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence, if any, before the Ld. CIT(A), and the Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the same and pass an order in accordance with law. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 13th October, 2026 at Chennai.
