MARIAPPAN RAJENDRAN,THIRUVARUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, , 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 06.01.2026 for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. In the instant appeals, the registry has noted the delay of 15 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 appeals for adjudication.

ITA No 2157/Chny/2026 (AY 2018-19) Mariappan Rajendran Vs ITO W 1 :: 2 :: 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the assessee did not file its return of income for the assessment year under consideration. Based on information received by the Assessing Officer, the assessee had made cash deposits aggregating to Rs.8,96,65,882/- (Rs.8,86,32,082/- in Indian Bank and Rs.10,33,800/- in The Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd.) during the relevant previous year. Since no return of income had been filed despite the above financial transactions, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and, accordingly, reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. The record further reveals that in the absence of any compliance by the assessee to the statutory notices, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte under the provisions of the Act and treated the entire cash deposits of Rs.8,96,65,882/- as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, observing that despite being afforded opportunities, the assessee failed to furnish any evidence or explanation in support of its grounds of appeal. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed. 6. Before us, the ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee could not effectively represent its case before the authorities below as no notice of hearing was received by the assessee. It was contended that the assessee has a bona fide

ITA No 2157/Chny/2026 (AY 2018-19) Mariappan Rajendran Vs ITO W 1 :: 3 :: explanation with supporting evidence regarding the impugned cash deposits and, therefore, one more opportunity may be granted to substantiate its case before the first appellate authority. It was pleaded that the matter may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 7. The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that sufficient opportunities had already been granted to the assessee. It was, therefore, argued that no interference with the impugned order was called for. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and the facts available on record, we are of the considered view that the dispute has been decided by the authorities below without the benefit of the assessee's explanation on the merits of the addition. The principles of natural justice require that a reasonable opportunity of being heard be afforded before an adverse decision is taken. Considering the submission of the assessee that notices of hearing were not received and that it is willing to furnish the necessary evidence explaining the cash deposits, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to provide one final opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the addition made under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act, we set aside the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for adjudication afresh after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings and file all relevant documents and explanations within the time stipulated by the ld.CIT(A). It is made clear that failure to do so shall entitle the

ITA No 2157/Chny/2026 (AY 2018-19) Mariappan Rajendran Vs ITO W 1 :: 4 :: ld.CIT(A) to decide the appeal in accordance with law on the basis of the material available on record. 9. 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 SANDE Digitally signed by SANDEEP EP KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2026.07.08 10:11:45 +05'30'