JAYAPRAKASH,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CIRLCE (17) 1, CHENNAI

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 25.02.2026 Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The assessee has not filed its Return of Income for A.Y. 2019- 20 relevant to the assessment year 2020-21. It came to the notice that the assessee was involved in some financial transactions during the year under consideration. In response to the notice issued 24.05.2024, the assessee declared his income Rs. 22,99,050/- for A.Y. 2020-21. However, the assessee has also admitted that the

ITA No 2172/Chny/2026 (AY 2020-21) Jayaprakash Vs ITO C 17(1) :: 2 :: income of salary of Rs. 29,43,591/- and land purchased of Rs. 53,16,00/- but the assesee failed to explain the source and nature of income by which the property was purchased. In the absence of response of the assessee, the AO concluded the assessment and made addition of Rs. 87,17,050/-as unexplained money u/s 69A. 3. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the AO, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A), sought condonation of delay of 89 days in filing the appeal and claimed that the assessment order was liable to be quashed as notice u/s.148 is void ab-initio. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine on account of a delay of 89 days in filing the appeal. 4. Being dissatisfied with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal, seeking to set aside the impugned order on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the sufficient cause demonstrated for the delay in filing the appeal. 5. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We observe that, at Sl. No. 15 of Form No. 35, the assessee has explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Upon consideration of the reasons so stated, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Since the appeal has not been adjudicated on merits, we are of the considered view that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice. We, therefore,

ITA No 2172/Chny/2026 (AY 2020-21) Jayaprakash Vs ITO C 17(1) :: 3 :: set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for adjudication de novo in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering such submissions and evidences as may be filed in support of its claim. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and diligently participate in the appellate proceedings. Needless to mention, in the event of failure on the part of the assessee to avail the opportunities so granted, the ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law on the basis of the material available on record. 7. 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 in Chennai.

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 SANDEEP Digitally signed by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.07.08 09:50:49 +05'30'