PARAMASIVA NAIDU MUTHUVELRAJ,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-7(3), CHENNAI

Since identical facts and issues are involved in all these five appeals, these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts relevant for the in the ITA No.2952/CHNY/2026 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 are stated herein:

The Assessee in ITA No.2952/CHNY/2026 raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT (A)] is against the law, the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles of equity and natural justice.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual. No regular return of income for the Assessment Year 2011-12 was filed by the appellant. However, subsequently based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits in the bank account with State Bank of India during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration, the Assessing officer formed an opinion that the income got escaped assessment from tax, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 23.03.20178. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s.148 of the Act nor the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer had proceeded with framing assessment order treating the cash deposit in the bank account of Rs.50,51,713/- as unexplained money of the appellant.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated 18.07.2023 dismissed the appeal. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the matter was restored by the Tribunal to the ld.CIT(A). While matter stood thus, the Assessing Officer had proceeded with levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 10.03.2025 as assessee had failed to respond to the showcause notice u/s.274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Being aggrieved by the order penalty, an appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 311 days. However, ld.CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. It is submitted that the delay in filing of appeal before the ld.CIT(A) had occurred on account of the fact that the appellant was not aware of the order passed by the Assessing Officer as the Consultant to whom the tax affairs of the appellant was entrusted had failed to communicate the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Thus, he submits that the ld.CIT(A) ought not have refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine.

On the other hand, Learned Sr.DR vehemently opposed the above submissions and submits that the ld.CIT(A) has passed a speaking and reasoned order while refusing to condone the delay.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration is whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing of appeal before him. Admittedly, there was delay of 311 days in filing of appeal before him. The appellant had filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay which is extracted by the ld.CIT(A) vide para 5.1 of the impugned order. We had carefully perused the averments made in the affidavit seeking the condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The main reasons cited by the appellant for the delay are that the appellant was not aware of the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act dated 10.03.2025 as the Tax Consultant handling tax matter had failed to communicate to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer and the notice issued by the Assessing Officer went to the email id of the Tax Consultant, who had been entrusted with the responsibility of handling and managing the appellant’s income tax matters.

Further, it is submitted that he was facing serious personal problems due to the Covid-19 pandemic and followed by disruption in business activities. However, the ld.CIT(A) rejected the above explanation by holding that the delay is inordinate and the appellant had failed to substantiate the explanation for the delay with evidence. The ld.CIT(A) also placed reliance on the numerous judicial precedents. We had carefully perused the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) and find that the ld.CIT(A) swayed by the fact that the delay is inordinate and also no documentary evidence was furnished in support of the explanation furnished for delay. We are of the considered opinion that the ld.CIT(A) ought not have refused to condone the delay merely for the reason that the delay is inordinate. It is settled position of law that length of the delay should not matter, what should be considered is whether there was a sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay. Further, we find that there is no material to show that the appellant was asked to furnish any evidence in support of the reasons for the delay. But, it is an undisputed fact that the appellant had filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay.

In view of this, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires fresh consideration by ld.CIT(A). The reliance placed by the ld.CIT(A) on the judicial precedents have no application, in as much as, those decisions only laid down the proposition that in the absence of sufficient and reasonable cause, the delay should not be condoned. The issue that is required to be determined by the ld.CIT(A) is whether there was a sufficient and reasonable cause for delay in filing appeal before. Therefore, the matter is restored back to the file of ld.CIT(A) to decide the issue whether there was a sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay in filing of appeal before the ld.CIT(A).

Accordingly, we restore the matter to file of the ld.CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.2952/CHNY/2026 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos.2953 to 2956/CHNY/2026 13. Since the facts and issues involved in the above captioned appeal is identical, therefore, our decision in ITA No.2952/CHNY/2026 shall apply mutatis mutandis to all these appeals of the assessee i.e. ITA Nos.2953 to 2956/CHNY/2026 also. Accordingly, grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

To sum up, all appeals filed by the Assessee i.e. in ITA No.2953/CHNY/2026 to ITA No.2956/CHNY/2026 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th July, 2026.