ALAGUVEL MADHANRAJ,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 27.10.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2017-18.

ITA No.3733/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Alaguvel Madhanraj :: 2 :: adjudicated the grounds of appeal on merits, rather he has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by refusing to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before him. The assessee explaining the delay of 402 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have filed an affidavit of the assessee explaining the cause for delay. The cause for the delay as discerned from the contents of the affidavit as well as from the explanation given by the Ld.AR during the hearing is that the assessee was not aware of the passing of the assessment order dated 27.04.2023 which was an ex parte order qua the assessee. According to the Ld.AR may be due to the glitches in the internet/system, the notices as well as the assessment order would have gone to the spam account of the assessee, because of which the assessee was in the dark about the order passed by the AO u/s.147/144 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). According to the Ld.AR the AO has made huge addition of Rs.59,57,136/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.69A/115BBE of the Act without hearing the assessee, hence, prayed that the delay may be condoned and assessee may be given an opportunity before the AO; and for such proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216.

ITA No.3733/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Alaguvel Madhanraj :: 3 :: the assessee had deposited Specified Bank Notes (SBN) in his bank account during the demonetization period, to the tune of more than Rs.48 lakhs, the AO reopened the assessment and issued notice. However, AO notes that assessee did not file any reply. And observed that in the original return of income filed by the assessee on 26.11.2017, assessee didn’t declare about the cash deposited in the bank during the demonetization period in Column 13(B) of the return of income filed by him. The AO thereafter issued several notices and found that the assessee didn’t reply even to his notices send by post. Hence, according to the AO he had no other alternative but to make the addition of SBN deposited during the demonetization period to the tune of Rs.59,57,136/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.69A/115BBE of the Act. According to the assessee, he didn’t receive the electronic communications sent to the e- mail may be due to the glitches in the system and the speed post referred to by the AO is also contested. Be that as it may. We note that huge addition has been made in the hands of the assessee and the assessee does not gain by not preferring an appeal against it. The omission on the part of the assessee cannot be termed deliberate because it is against the human nature that a person will allow himself to be saddled with huge liability when he pleads that he can explain the nature and source of the cash/SBNs deposited in his bank account. Hence, for the interest of justice and fair play and considering the cause for the delay as asserted

ITA No.3733/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Alaguvel Madhanraj :: 4 :: by the assessee could not be dis-proved, based on the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee, we condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A); and taking note that the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the grounds of appeal on merits and has confirmed the action of the AO, we find there is violation of natural justice and hence, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A); and finding that the AO has passed an ex parte order qua the assessee, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Co. (supra) and restore the assessment back to the file of AO for de nova assessment. The assessee is directed to file a written submission/relevant document to substantiate the nature and source of the cash deposit and the AO to frame assessment in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.

Order pronounced on the 09th day of July, 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (एबी टी. वक�) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 09th July, 2026. YS

Digitally signed YASHVI by YASHVIR SINGH R SINGH Date: 2026.07.20 15:24:05 +05'30'

ITA No.3733/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Alaguvel Madhanraj :: 5 :: आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF