MOOSAKUTTY PREMNAUSHAD,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, THIRUVARUR

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)] dated 25.08.2023 for AY 2012-13. 2. In the instant appeals, the registry has noted the delay of 887 days in filing the captioned appeal. We have gone through the condonation petition along with affidavit filed, we find that the reasons given by the assessee are sufficient cause for delay in filing the captioned appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

ITA No 2103/Chny/2026 (AY 2012-13) Moosakutty Premnaushad Vs ITO, W1 :: 2 :: 3. Brief facts of the case: The assessee did not file his return of income for the relevant year despite the assessee deposited cash amount of Rs. 13,16,625/- in his account. In response to the notices issued, the assessee admitted the total income of Rs. 80,160/- and claimed a loss of Rs. 65,867/- in house property. Besides, the assessee also admitted his professional income of Rs. 1,59,8885/- which was worked out 8% of the total contract receipts of Rs. 19,98,566/-, In the absence of any cogent evidence to verify his claim, the AO assessed the total income of Rs. 20,00,965/- as unexplained credit in the bank account. 4. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and raised ground that the AO erred in making addition without appreciating the facts. But the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-prosecution of the appeal. 5. Being dissatisfied with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal, seeking to grant one more opportunity to produce the relevant documents related to his claim before Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that no proper and effective opportunity of hearing was afforded and that the CIT(A) below failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective and passed exparte order. 6. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We observe that the order of the CIT(A) had been passed without providing the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard during the appellate proceedings. Two notices were issued during

ITA No 2103/Chny/2026 (AY 2012-13) Moosakutty Premnaushad Vs ITO, W1 :: 3 :: Covid-19 pandemic and thereafter other two notices issued to which assessee missed to respond the same. Accordingly, in the interest of justice we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal denovo after granting adequate opportunity of hearing and considering the submissions/evidence that may be furnished by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to diligently to participate in the appellate proceedings. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 06th day of July 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (प�ावती एस) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (PADMAVATHY S) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद)या/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद)य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, *दनांक/Dated: 06th July, 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS 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 Digitally signed SANDEE by SANDEEP KUMAR P KUMAR Date: 2026.07.08 10:08:53 +05'30'