VETRIVEL SUBRAMANI,TAMBARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP. WD 22(4) TBM, TAMBARAM

आदेश / O R D E R

PER BENCH:

The captioned appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)] dated 28.11.2025 in quantum for Assessment Year 2020-21 and dated 18.02.2026 & 18.02.2026 in penalty u/s.270A & 271AAC(1) for Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2020-21.

ITA No 1242-1244/Chny/2026 (AY 2020-21) Vetrivel Subramani Vs ITO, NCW 22(4) :: 2 :: 2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The short issue arising for our consideration is whether the delay of 173 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be condoned and whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. 3. The facts borne out from the record show that the assessment for A.Y. 2020-21 was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 18.02.2025 determining the total income at Rs.4,21,75,449/-. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.2,86,75,341/- by way of disallowance of salary and wages expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act and a further addition of Rs.1,24,75,248/- u/s. 69 of the Act treating the investment in motor vehicles as unexplained investment. Consequently penalties are also imposed u/s.270A & 271AAC(1) for Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2020-21. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal came to be dismissed in limine on the ground that the same was filed with a delay of 173 days. Consequently, the issues raised by the assessee challenging the additions made u/s 37 and 69 of the Act were not adjudicated on merits. Aggrieved, also by the penalties orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A). However, the both the penalty appeals came to be dismissed ex-parte. 5. Before us, the ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of blue metals and transport and that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was neither deliberate nor intentional. It was submitted that

ITA No 1242-1244/Chny/2026 (AY 2020-21) Vetrivel Subramani Vs ITO, NCW 22(4) :: 3 :: due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and father- in-law was seriously ill, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time. It was further submitted that the assessee has a strong prima facie case on merits inasmuch as the disallowance u/s. 37 was made without appreciating that there was an inadvertent clerical error in the financial statements resulting in interchange of figures relating to purchases and salary expenses, and the addition u/s. 69 was made without considering the fact that the vehicles were acquired through bank finance from IndusInd Bank and the source of investment was duly explainable. It was therefore pleaded that the delay may be condoned and the matter restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. 6. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. It is a settled proposition of law that while considering an application for condonation of delay, a liberal approach is required to be adopted where sufficient cause is shown and where refusal to condone the delay would result in denial of substantial justice. The object of adjudication is to decide disputes on merits rather than to non-suit a litigant on technical considerations. In the present case, we find that the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) has been dismissed solely on account of delay and the issues arising from the assessment order have not been examined on merits. The additions involved are substantial in nature and the assessee claims to possess documentary evidence in support of its contentions. In our considered view, the ends of justice would be met if the delay in

ITA No 1242-1244/Chny/2026 (AY 2020-21) Vetrivel Subramani Vs ITO, NCW 22(4) :: 4 :: filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is condoned and an opportunity is granted to the assessee to substantiate its case. 8. Accordingly, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we condone the delay of 173 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to his file with a direction to admit the appeal and adjudicate the issues arising from the assessment order afresh on merits in accordance with law. The assessee shall be at liberty to file all relevant documentary evidence, including bank statements, books of account, loan documents, repayment schedules and any other supporting material in support of its claim. The ld. CIT(A) shall consider the same and pass a speaking order after providing reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. Since we have restored the quantum appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, we refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the additions made u/s. 37 and 69 of the Act. All issues are left open for adjudication by the ld. CIT(A). 10. Insofar as the connected penalty appeals are concerned, it is noticed that the penalty appeals were also disposed of ex parte by the ld. CIT(A) without adjudication on merits. Considering the fact that the quantum appeal itself has been restored for fresh adjudication and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the orders of the ld. CIT(A) in the penalty matters as well. Accordingly, the penalty orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) are set aside and the matters are restored to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeals afresh in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to extend full cooperation and furnish all

ITA No 1242-1244/Chny/2026 (AY 2020-21) Vetrivel Subramani Vs ITO, NCW 22(4) :: 5 :: relevant details and documents as may be called for by the ld. CIT(A). 11. In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is condoned and the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The connected penalty appeals are also allowed for statistical purposes and restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh disposal in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. 12. In the result, all captioned appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 09th day of June 2026, in

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: 09th June, 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