SHRI SWAMINATHAN RAMAMOORTHY,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, NCW-22(4), TAMBARAM

आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. CIT(A)"], dated 15.05.2026 confirming the assessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), for the Assessment Year ("AY") 2020-21

ITA No. 3501/Chny/2026 (AY 2020-21) Shri Swaminathan Ramamoorthy Vs ITO NCW-22(4) :: 2 :: 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal as mentioned below:- 1. The order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals) is contrary to law, facts, and circumstances of the case and is liable to be quashed. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in treating the appeal as inadmissible merely on account of the delay of 343 days, without appreciating that the said delay was occasioned by the negligence and misleading conduct of the appellant's earlier Authorised representative. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the appellant had failed to establish "sufficient cause" u/s 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without properly considering the explanation furnished by the appellant. 4. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in indirectly confirming the addition of payments towards credit cards amounting to Rs.60,29,923/- u/s 69C of the Act. 5. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in indirectly confirming the addition of foreign remittance amounting to Rs. 1,87,706/- u/s 69C of the Act. 6. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in indirectly confirming the addition of Rs.4,53,312/-relating to salary. For these grounds and such other grounds that may be adduced before or during the hearing of the appeal, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside to the file of Assessing Officer and/or Provide such other relief as the Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit.

ITA No. 3501/Chny/2026 (AY 2020-21) Shri Swaminathan Ramamoorthy Vs ITO NCW-22(4) :: 3 :: Bank and State Bank of India, respectively. The assessee had also made foreign remittances of Rs.1,87,706/- and received salary of Rs.5,05,812/- from Finetech Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Since the assessee failed to furnish any explanation regarding the aforesaid transactions during the proceedings under section 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), the Assessing Officer formed a view that the transactions remained unexplained and that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the assessment year 2020-21. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings were initiated and the assessment was completed in accordance with law. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, there was a delay of 341 days in filing the appeal. The ld. CIT(A), observing that the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay, dismissed the appeal in limine as time-barred. Now revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and that the assessee was not provided an effective opportunity to explain and substantiate the reasons for such delay. The ld. AR therefore pleaded that the matter may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay and thereafter adjudicate the appeal in accordance with law. 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).

ITA No. 3501/Chny/2026 (AY 2020-21) Shri Swaminathan Ramamoorthy Vs ITO NCW-22(4) :: 4 :: 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was delayed by 341 days and the same was dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation. The question whether the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay requires examination on the basis of the explanation furnished by the assessee and the supporting evidence, if any. Considering the facts of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the view that the assessee deserves an effective opportunity to explain the circumstances resulting in the delay of 341 days. The appellate remedy should not be denied solely on account of limitation without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to place its explanation and relevant supporting material on record. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity to file a proper application for condonation of the delay of 341 days, along with a detailed explanation and supporting evidence, if any. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) shall examine the explanation furnished by the assessee and decide the issue of condonation of delay in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order. If the delay is condoned, the ld. CIT(A) shall thereafter adjudicate the appeal on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and furnish all relevant details and evidence as may be called for by the ld. CIT(A). We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the sufficiency or otherwise of the cause for the delay or on the merits

ITA No. 3501/Chny/2026 (AY 2020-21) Shri Swaminathan Ramamoorthy Vs ITO NCW-22(4) :: 5 :: of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. All issues are left open for consideration by the ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 08th day of September, 2026 in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (इंतूरी रामा राव) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद*य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद*य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, SANDEE Digitally signed +दनांक/Dated: 08th September 2026. by SANDEEP SNDP, Sr. PS P KUMAR Date: आदेश क� �त,ल-प अ.े-षत/Copy to: KUMAR 2026.09.11 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 12:55:01 +05'30' 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF