VETRIVEL MADESWARAN,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3393/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 July 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the assessee's undertaking to provide evidence and the nature of additions made under Section 69A, the matters were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals with a delay, which was condoned. The appeals were against orders that were dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-compliance. The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals filed with delay should be condoned and whether the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to non-compliance and additions made under Section 69A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 139,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO & BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 28.07.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी इंटूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद� एवं �ी एस.एस. िव"ने$ रिव, �ाियक सद� के सम% । BEFORE SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3025 & 3393/Chny/2026 िनधा'रण वष'/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Vetrivel Madeswaran, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.221, Veeranam Main Road, Ward-1(1), Salem, Tamil Nadu – 636 001. No.3, Gandhi Road, Salem – 636 007. [PAN: ALQPV-5285-M] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,थ*/Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. C. Venugopal, Advocate +,थ* की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Premi, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 23.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 28.07.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders both dated 10.10.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment years 2018-19 & 2020-21, respectively.

2 ITA Nos. 3025 & 3393/Chny/2026

2.

Since issues raised in these appeals of the assessee are similar

based on the same identical facts, with the consent of both the parties,

we proceed to hear the appeals together and pass consolidated order

for the sake of convenience.

3.

First we shall take up ITA No. 3025/Chny/2026 for AY 2018-19.

4.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 142 days. The

assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said

delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we

find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, delay of 142

days condoned.

5.

At the outset, it is noted that the assessee preferred an appeal against the assessment order before the ld.CIT(A) which was dismissed

for non-compliance. The ld.AR, Shri. C. Venugopal, Advocate,

requested one more opportunity as the assessee is ready to prosecute his case before the ld.CIT(A) supported by relevant documentary

evidences.

6.

The ld.DR, Ms. Premi, Sr.AR, reported no objection.

3 ITA Nos. 3025 & 3393/Chny/2026

7.

Upon hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, we note

that the AO made additions on account of 69A of the Act by observing

that the assessee has failed to explain the nature and sources of cash

deposits in his bank account vide para no.5 of the assessment order.

We note that no return of income filed under the provisions of 139 of the

Act, nor any response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, which is evident from

para no. 2.1 of the assessment order. Admittedly, there was no

compliance before the ld.CIT(A), which is clear from para no.6 of the

impugned order. Therefore, we are of the considered view since the AO

made addition u/s. 69A of the Act, which requires assistance from the

assessee, wherein taking into account undertaking offered by the ld.AR

on behalf of the assessee, we deem it proper to remand the matter to

the file of the ld.CIT(A) for a fresh consideration. The assessee is liberty

to file evidences, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, order of the

ld.CIT(A) is set aside and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

for statistical purposes.

8.

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

purposes.

9.

Now we take up ITA No. 3393/Chny/2026 for AY 2020-21.

4 ITA Nos. 3025 & 3393/Chny/2026

10.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 142 days. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we

find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, delay of 142 days condoned.

11.

Therefore, considering the submissions of the ld.AR and the ld.DR and in the facts and circumstances of the case, following the same view taken in ITA No. 3025/Chny/2026 in the aforementioned paras, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for a fresh consideration. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, order of the ld.CIT(A) is set aside and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

12.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28th July, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

5 ITA Nos. 3025 & 3393/Chny/2026

Chennai, Dated: 28.07.2026 JPV आदेश की +ितिलिप अ3ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ*/Appellant, 2.+,थ*/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु4/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय +ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड' फाईल/GF.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.07.30 10:42:19 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →