SUBBAYAN SUJAYNATH,TIRUCHIRAPPALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-AO, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in a textile stitching and readymade garments business and did not file his return of income for the AY 2020-21. Based on information available with the department, the AO found that the assessee has made certain financial transactions aggregating to Rs.68.79 lakhs, comprising cash deposits in bank accounts of Rs.17.29 lakhs, credit card payments of Rs.51.21 lakhs and TDS reflected on insurance commission of Rs.0.29 lakhs. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 28.02.2024 was issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed a return of income on 12.02.2025 for A.Y 2020-21, declaring total income of Rs.4,37,310/-. Subsequently, the AO issued statutory notices to the assessee and by calling for details. In response, the assessee has submitted part reply along with supporting documents for verification. On perusal of the documents submitted by the assessee, the AO completed the assessment by passing an order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 16.03.2025 by making an addition of Rs.98,44,630/- as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and amounting to Rs.30,667/- as income from other sources and by arriving total income of Rs.98,74,610/-.

At the outset, we observed that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine filed by the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal by 21 days. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

The ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee was unaware of the impugned order passed by the first appellate authority due to health issues during the relevant period. Further, the ld.AR of the assessee argued that the ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on limitation despite the delay being only 21 days and despite the assessee having shown reasonable and Bonafide cause, without adopting the liberal approach mandated by law. Therefore, the ld.AR prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of AO. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment proceedings effectively.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the appeal was to be filed before the ld.CIT(A) by the assessee within 30 days of the service, but the assessee filed this appeal with delay of 21 days respectively. The assessee has been negligent in filing the appeal within the time limit provided and hence prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed an exparte order by considering the information available with the department and on appeal the same have been dismissed in limine by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to delay in filing the appeals before the first appellate authority.

Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it fit to give one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) as the assessee had filed the condonation of delay in his form 35 itself and hence, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file to ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh on merits in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.