RAVICHANDRAN CHINNAPPAN,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-2,, VELLORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1397/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 July 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on medical documents provided. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not grant a proper opportunity to the assessee during the assessment stage.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 214-day delay, which the CIT(A) refused to condone without medical certificates. The assessee, an ex-serviceman, claimed the delay was due to illness and seeking legal counsel.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the assessee was granted a proper opportunity by the AO to explain the cash deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 11.05.2026Pronounced: 07.07.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 17.02.2026 [hereinafter referred as the ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2019-20 (hereinafter referred as ‘AY’).

2.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee drawing our attention to the impugned order submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits, and dismissed the

ITA Nos.1397/Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20) Ravichandran Chinnappan :: 2 :: appeal by refusing to condone the delay of 214 days in filing of the appeal before him. In this regard, the Ld.AR submitted that despite the assessee bringing to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A) that he is an ex- serviceman and residing in village in the district of Vellore and wasn’t well-versed with the Income Tax proceedings and that only when the demand was raised against the assessee, he came to know that there has been an assessment order passed against him, making addition of cash deposits to the tune of Rs.27,99,267/- and demand made of Rs.44,02,119/- as well as penalty imposed to the tune of Rs.2,18,342/-. According to the assessee, he being a salaried person and suffering from the disabilities from the service, had to search for a tax counsel and sought his legal opinion, which consumed time and therefore, the delay was caused. However, the Ld.CIT(A) refused to condone the delay since no medical certificate/affidavit was filed in support of the cause for delay. Drawing our attention to the medical records placed before us, the assessee pleads for sympathetic consideration to condone the delay and also an opportunity to explain before the AO the nature & source of deposit in bank account, since no proper opportunity was granted to the assessee during the assessment stage and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC).

ITA Nos.1397/Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20) Ravichandran Chinnappan :: 3 :: 3. Per contra, the Ld.DR does not want us to give one more innings to the assessee.

4.

Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, it is noted that the assessee did not file the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (herein after the Act). The AO received information that there were certain cash deposits in his bank account. Hence, in order to ascertain the nature of source of the cash deposits, the AO reopened the assessment, and issued various notices to the assessee. Pursuant to it, the assessee is noted to have filed submission along with acknowledgement of the ITR and computation of income, bank statement of Fincare Small Finance Bank limited etc and submitted that the derived income from salary and income from other sources. However, the AO was of the view that the amount of cash deposits reported in Form 61A does not tally with the amount as per bank statement for the year concerned. According to AO, he asked the assessee to explain the nature and source of deposit in respect of cash deposit as well as non- cash credit, but no compliance was made by the assessee. Therefore, the AO was of the view that the assessee could not explain the nature and source of credit in the bank account to the extent of Rs.27,99,267/-. Hence, he treated the same as unexplained u/s 69A and made an addition of Rs.27,99,267/- by passing assessment order on 18.03.2024. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) found that the appeal filed is delayed by 214 days;

ITA Nos.1397/Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20) Ravichandran Chinnappan :: 4 :: and refused to condone the delay because the assessee furnished only the medical record which evidenced hospitalization for few days. However, before us the assessee has filed relevant medical documents, which justified the delay caused before the Ld.CIT(A). Hence we condone the delay for filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A). Having done so, we find that proper opportunity was not given by the AO while making the addition of Rs.27,99,267/-. Hence, we restore the issue of addition of Rs.27,99,267/- back to the file of AO and direct him to give one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the nature and source of the same . The assessee is also directed to explain/file relevant evidences to substantiate the nature and source of the deposit of Rs.27,99,267/- and the AO to decide the issue in accordance with law after hearing the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 07th day of July, 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (एबी टी. वक�) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�ई/Chennai, िदनांक/Dated: 07th July, 2026. KB Digitally signed YASHVI by YASHVIR SINGH R SINGH Date: 2026.07.10 14:46:08 +05'30'

ITA Nos.1397/Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20) Ravichandran Chinnappan :: 5 :: आदेश की �ितिलिप 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

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →