VELLAISAMY KALAVATHY,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO WARD 1 , NAGERCOIL

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual deriving income under the head “Salaries”. The Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2021-22 was filed on 02.12.2021 disclosing a total come of Rs.4,88,930/-. Against the said Return of Income, the assessment was completed by the e- Assessment Unit of the Department(hereinafter called ‘AO’) vide order dated 28.12.2022 passed u/s.143 r.w.s 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs.17,19,290/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of excess of cash deposits over withdrawal from the bank account of Rs.3,21,620/- for the failure of the appellant to prove the source of the cash deposits. Similarly, the Assessing officer made addition of Rs.9,80,000/- on account of the unexplained investment on the immovable property rejecting the explanation of the appellant that the consideration of Rs.9,80,000/- was paid in cash on various occasions to the seller of the property.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. At the outset, there is a delay 61 days in presenting appeal before this Tribunal. The appellant had filed a petition seeking contention of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred as the appellant is employed as Travelling Ticket Examine (TTE) with the Indian Railways. The nature of employment involves continuous travel, irregular duty hours and posting across difference locations, as a result, the appellant was not able to file the appeal within the stipulated time.

We have perused the Affidavit and the averments made in the Affidavit. The averments made in the affidavit remain uncontroverted by Learned CIT-DR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V.Laxmi Narain Rao AIR 1973 SC 627, held that an uncontroverted affidavit shall be taken as an affidavit on fact. In the light of this legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the delay had occurred in filing the appeal on account of Bonafide reasons and the explanation cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay, hence, the delay is condoned. Accordingly, we admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

The ld.Counsel submits that the ld.CIT(A) ought not have confirmed the addition on account of the cash deposit in the bank account without considering the cash withdrawals made from the bank account prior to 04.03.2020. In support of this, he also filed a statement of cash withdrawn from the State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank. He further submits that the ld.CIT(A) ought not have confirmed the addition on account of unexplained investment of Rs.9,80,000/- on purchase of immovable property rejecting contention that this consideration was paid in cash prior to the date of sale deed. The details of Cash Withdrawals made on the following dates :  Rs.80,000 out of the cash withdrawals of Rs.18,00,000 made on 06.02.19  Rs.3,00,000 out of the cash withdrawals of Rs.3,00,000 made on 04.03.2020  Rs.6,00,000 out of cash withdrawals of Rs.15,00,000 made on 17.08.2020. 8. On the other hand, learned Sr.DR submits that the ld.CIT(A) had analysed the cash withdrawals as well as the cash deposits came to firm conclusion that there was no plausible explanation in support of the cash deposits in the bank account as well as the source for investment on purchase of immovable property.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether there was a plausible explanation in support of source of cash deposits in the bank account as well as source of purchase of immovable property. The contention of the appellant that the Lower Authorities had ignored the cash withdrawals made from the bank account prior to 04.03.2020 which were stated to have been utilized for the purpose of subsequent deposits in the bank account as well as payment of sale consideration for purchase of immovable property remains uncontroverted. The explanation is required to be verified by the Assessing Officer, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that interests of justice would be met, if the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo assessment in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 15th July, 2026. (GEORGE GEORGE K) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; िदनांक / Dated : 15th July, 2026 SGR, Sr.PS आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant.

GANGADHARA RAO SALEELA Date: 2026.07.17 15:56:37 +05'30'