MOHAMEDSALIH SULAIMAN SAIT,THANJAVUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, THANJAVUR

Since identical facts and issues are involved in all these six appeals, these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal in ITA No.584/CHNY/2026 for A.Y.2018-19 are stated herein:

The Assessee in ITA No.584/CHNY/2026 raised the following grounds of appeal :

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual. No regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act was filed by the appellant for the Assessment Year 2018-19. However, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits of Rs.1,80,15,000/- in the bank account during the previous year relevant to A.Y.2018-19. The Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s.148 was issued on 06.04.2022 after duly complying with the procedure laid u/s.148A of the Income Tax Act. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s.148, nor the notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, e-Assessment Unit of the Department (hereinafter called ‘AO’) had proceeded with the best judgement assessment order vide order dated 03.12.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act at a total income of rs.1,80,15,000/- . While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of cash deposits in the bank account of Rs.1,80,15,000/- as unexplained money of the appellant for the failure of the appellant to explain the said cash deposits.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A) contending that the appellant is into business of retail trading of eggs and since taxable income is below taxable limit, no Return of Income was filed. He further submits that the sale proceeds of eggs were deposited in the bank account. The appellant had not received any notice u/s.148 or the assessment order since he had no digital knowledge. The appeal was filed with a delay of 609 days before the ld.CIT(A). The appellant also filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that he was not aware of the assessment order as he had not received sms alerts on mobile available as per assessment nor the assessment order. It is only after receipt of notice from the Jurisdictional Assessing officer about the arrear demand, the appellant had come to know about the assessment order. However, the ld.CIT(A) dismissing the appeal in limine for non-prosecution without condoning the delay.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The ld.AR submits that having regard to the explanation offered before the ld.CIT(A) explaining the reasons for delay, the ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. He had further submitted that the appellant had not received notice of hearing issued by the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, he prayed that since the assessment order is also ex- parte order, the matter may be remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer.

On the other hand, ld.Sr.DR vehemently opposed the above submission and submits that the appellant had not cooperated neither during the assessment proceedings nor before the ld.CIT(A) and the appellant does not deserve any sympathetic consideration.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is that whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in refusing the condonation of delay of 608 days in filing of appeal and dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground of delay. Admittedly, the appellant had filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay before the ld.CIT(A) by stating that the appellant neither received the notice u/s.148 and notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, nor the assessment order. The appellant had come to know of the assessment order only on receipt of the notice of arrear demand from the JAO. This has resulted in delay of 608 days reckoned from the date of the assessment order. The above averments made by the appellant remain uncontroverted by the ld.CIT(A). The Hon’ble

Therefore, in our considered opinion, the ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay, adjudicated the issues in appeal on merit. However, keeping in view that the assessment order also an ex-parte order and we are satisfied with the reasons for non-appearance before the assessing authority, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remand to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.584/CHNY/2026 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

We find that the identical facts and issues are involved in assessee’s appeal bearing Appeal No.584/CHNY/2026 for A.Y.2018-19. Accordingly, our findings given above shall apply mutatis mutandis to these five appeals in ITA Nos.585 to 589/CHNY/2026 also, accordingly, we remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo assessment for adjudication of the issues in appeal on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA Nos.585 to 589/CHNY/2026 are partly allowed for statistical purpose.

To sum up, all appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th April, 2026. (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; "दनांक / Dated : 27th April, 2026 SGR, Sr.PS आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant.