NOORZAHAN KASIM L/R OF LATE SHRI KADHAR MOHIDEEN BABUSHATE,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, KARUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2918/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 August 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the legal heir's lack of familiarity with tax matters and communication gaps. The Tribunal remitted the appeals back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present necessary details.

What were the facts?

The assessee, represented by the legal heir, failed to file returns of income for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Assessing Officer treated cash deposits in the bank account as income under Section 69A. The appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals can be condoned due to the legal heir's circumstances and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & MS. PADMAVATHY.S

For Respondent: Ms. Supraja, Addl. CIT

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: These appeals by the assessee are against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 29.09.2025 for Assessment Years (AYs) 2016-17 & 2017-18.

ITA Nos.2918 & 2919/Chny/2026 Noorzahan Kasim, L/R of Late Kadhar Mohideen Babushate :- 2 -: 2. The assessee late Mr. Kadhar Mohideen Babushate is an individual and represented by the legal representative. The assessee did not file the return of income for the years under consideration. The AO noticed that there has been cash and other credits in the bank account to the extent of Rs.51,82,400/- for AY 2016-17 and a sum of Rs.53,20,000/- for AY 2017-18 in the bank account of late Mr. Kadhar Mohideen Babushate and accordingly reopened the assessment by issuing of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Since the assessee did not file the return of income, and did not respond to any of the notices, the AO passed an order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act treating the entire cash deposit as addition u/s. 69A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Since the assessee did not file any reply to the notices issued by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

3.

There is a delay of 169 days in filing both the appeals before the Tribunal and the assessee filed an affidavit in this regard. It is submitted in the condonation petition that the assessee who is the son of the legal heir has passed away and the legal representative who is running a chicken shop in a small town is not well versed in the income tax matters. It is further submitted that since the death of the assessee the legal heir is handling the income tax matters with the help of professional and is completely dependant on the said counsel. It is also submitted that there was a communication gap between the earlier auditor who was handling assessee's tax matters and the auditor of the legal heir due to which the legal heir was not aware that the appellate order being passed. Hence, it is submitted that the reason for delay is bonafide and unintentional. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for

ITA Nos.2918 & 2919/Chny/2026 Noorzahan Kasim, L/R of Late Kadhar Mohideen Babushate :- 3 -: the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone the delay in filing both the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication.

4.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) reiterated the submissions made in the condonation petition and submitted that the non-compliance before the lower authorities is also due to the same reason. The ld. AR accordingly prayed for one more opportunity with an undertaking that the assessee would represent the case properly. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice and fair play to represent the case properly by producing the required details. Accordingly, we remit both the appeals back to the A.O with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on day of August, 2026 at Chennai.

(जॉज� जॉज� के) (पदमावती यस) (Padmavathy.S) (George George K) उपा�� / Vice President लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: August, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S EJTADA Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA NARESH DURGA Date: 2026.08.10 NARESH 11:51:00 +05'30'

ITA Nos.2918 & 2919/Chny/2026 Noorzahan Kasim, L/R of Late Kadhar Mohideen Babushate :- 4 -:

आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →