RAMA CHANDRAN STANISLAS,MARTHANDAM vs. CHE-W-(513) (91), CHENNAI

The Registry has noted a delay of 18 days in filing the present appeal. We have considered the condonation petition and affidavit filed by the assessee and find the reasons stated therein to constitute sufficient cause. Accordingly, the delay of 18 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

Briefly stated, the assessment was reopened on the basis of information flagged on the departmental system regarding cash deposits of Rs.68,21,100/- during F.Y. 2016-17, comprising Rs.31,48,700/- in State Bank of India and Rs.36,72,400/- in Indian Bank. Since the assessee had not filed a return under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), the Assessing Officer formed a belief that income had escaped assessment. Accordingly, after obtaining the requisite approval, an order under section 148A(d) dated 23.03.2024 was passed and notice under section 148 dated 25.03.2024 was issued. In response, the assessee filed a return declaring total income of Rs.2,72,840/-. During reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had not furnished satisfactory evidence explaining the bank deposits despite statutory notices. Information obtained under section 133(6) revealed total credits of Rs.73,24,082/- in the two bank accounts, comprising Rs.39,16,453/- in Indian Bank and Rs.34,07,629/- in State Bank of India. Although the assessee had disclosed sales/collections of Rs.72,69,738/- from consultancy services, no books, invoices or other corroborative evidence were furnished. Verification of the GST portal also did not reveal any GST registration or business activity in the assessee's name. Consequently, the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act by treating the entire bank credits of Rs.73,24,082/- as Rama Chandran Stanislas Vs CHE-W-(513) (91) unexplained money under section 69A, taxable under section 115BBE of the Act. The total income was accordingly assessed at Rs.73,24,082/- (rounded off to Rs.73,24,080/-).

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal was filed with a delay of 111 days and the ld. CIT(A), holding that sufficient cause for the delay had not been established, dismissed the appeal in limine as time-barred without adjudicating the grounds on merits. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before us.

Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and that the assessee was not afforded an adequate opportunity to explain the circumstances causing the delay. It was submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for consideration of the condonation petition and, thereafter, adjudication of the appeal on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing. The ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A), though he fairly submitted that the matter could be restored for deciding the issue of condonation in accordance with law.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is undisputed that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The assessee ought to have been afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity to explain the delay and place the relevant supporting material on record. Whether the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay is required to be examined on the basis of the explanation and evidence furnished by it. Rama Chandran Stanislas Vs CHE-W-(513) (91)

In the interest of substantial justice and considering that the appeal has not been adjudicated on merits, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file. The ld. CIT(A) shall provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to file a proper application for condonation of the delay of 111 days, if not already filed, along with the explanation and supporting evidence. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) shall consider the issue of condonation in accordance with law and pass a speaking order.

If the delay is condoned, the ld. CIT(A) shall thereafter adjudicate the assessee's appeal on merits, after providing reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing. The assessee shall furnish all relevant documents and evidence in support of its contentions and cooperate with the appellate proceedings.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the addition of Rs.73,24,082/- made under section 69A of the Act. All issues on merits are left open for consideration by the ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 08th day of September, 2026 in Chennai. (इंतूरी रामा राव) (मनु कुमार िग"र) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद*य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यक सद*य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

""थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड"फाईल/GF