JAVEED BASHA MUSTHAFA KAMAL,HOSUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, HOSUR, HOSUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 127/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 June 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, considering the incorrect email ID used for notices and the assessee's medical condition. The Tribunal also noted the lack of proper opportunity for the assessee during assessment proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a 115-day delay. The assessee claimed the delay was due to not being aware of the assessment order, as notices were sent to a wrong email ID and he was suffering from illness. The AO had made a significant addition under Section 69A based on cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the assessment order passed ex parte without proper opportunity to the assessee is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 16.04.2026Pronounced: 03.06.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Addl./JCIT/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Kolkata, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld CIT(A)’), dated 28.02.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2019-20 u/s. 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.127 /Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20) Javeed Basha Musthafa Kamal :: 2 :: 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed impugned order by refusing to admit the appeal on the ground of delay of 115 days in filing of the appeal before him, without going into the merits of the case. The Ld AR also pointed out that the AO has passed an ex parte (best judgment assessment), making a huge addition of ₹86,47,500/- alleging the assessee’s failure to explain the nature and source of cash deposits during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the Ld. AR assailed the action of the Ld. CIT(A) refusing to condone the delay of 115 days by stating that reason for delay was because assessee was not aware of the existence of assessment order itself. The Ld AR pointed out that the AO had issued notices to the wrong email ID - MIGR@MIGR.COM instead of husanarabegumol@gmail.com. Therefore, the assessee was in the dark about the assessment proceedings going on against him, which led to the passing of the assessment order on 28.02.2025 under Section 144, making addition of ₹86,47,500/- under Section 69A of the Act. Further, he filed an affidavit which shows that the assessee was suffering from serious illness. Copy of the medical records was also placed on record. Hence, he pleaded that the delay caused in filing of appeal before the Ld CIT(A) be condoned and the impugned ex parte action be set aside. He also prayed that since the AO had passed the assessment order without hearing the assessee, without giving any opportunity to the assessee, assessment be restored

ITA No.127 /Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20) Javeed Basha Musthafa Kamal :: 3 :: back to the file of AO by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC). Hence the Ld AR prayed that the assessment be set aside back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment.

3.

Per contra, the Ld. DR does not want to give one more innings to the assessee and pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order rejecting the application for condoning the delay. Hence, she does not want us to give one more innings to the assessee.

4.

Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, it is noted that for A.Y. 2019–20, the assessee did not file his return of income. However, the AO received information that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to ₹86,47,500/- in his savings bank account with Bank of Baroda. Hence, in order to ascertain the nature and source of deposits, the AO is noted to have issued notice for re-opening the assessment and, taking note that the assessee failed to respond to any of his notices, has passed the best judgment assessment under Section 144, adding the entire cash deposits of ₹86,47,500/- under Section 69A of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 115 days. The assessee filed reasons for condoning the delay, but, the CIT(A) was not impressed with the same, has refused to condone

ITA No.127 /Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20) Javeed Basha Musthafa Kamal :: 4 :: the delay and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Hence dismissed the appeal filed by assessee.

5.

We do not countenance the action of the Ld. CIT(A) not condoning the delay especially when the AO has issued notices to the wrong email ID-‘MIGR@MIGR.COM’ instead of sending the same to the correct email ID ‘husanarabegumol@gmail.com’, which obviously prevented the assessee from responding to the notice issued during assessment, which resulted in passing of the ‘best judgment assessment’. According to the Ld. AR, the assessee came to know about the existence of the assessment order only when the AO initiated coercive action against the assessee. Moreover, the assessee has filed medical records to show that the assessee was suffering from various ailments, which also prevented him from liaisoning/contacting and handing over the relevant documents to the AR, which added to the delay. Hence, we are of the view that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay.

5.1 Be that as it may, since the AO has not given proper opportunity to the assessee during the assessment proceedings, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box (supra), we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee before the Assessing Officer.

ITA No.127 /Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20) Javeed Basha Musthafa Kamal :: 5 :: 5.2 Hence, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The assessee is directed to file relevant documents to substantiate the nature and source of the cash deposits without fail, and the AO shall make the assessment in accordance with law after hearing the assessee.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on the 03rd day of June, 2026, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (इंटूरी रामा राव) (एबी टी. वक�) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 03rd June, 2026. MM 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 YASHVI by YASHVIR SINGH R SINGH Date: 2026.06.20 16:13:35 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →