ARUMUGAM SARAVANAN,AMBATTUR vs. ITO, NCW-7(3), CHENNAI

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “I respectfully submit that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not correct based on my facts and situation. My appeal has been rejected only on the ground of delay of 601 days, without properly understanding my circumstances and the genuine reasons explained by me I am a small individual running a typing and Xerox centre, and I do not have proper knowledge about income tax laws and online faceless proceedings. The assessment in my case was carried out under the faceless system, and I was not fully aware of the notices and proceedings happening online

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual. No regular return of income was filed under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-17. Based on the information that the appellant had purchased immovable property for Rs.,40,00,000/- and had also made cash deposits of Rs.24,16,200/- in its bank accounts maintained with IDBI Bank during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 23.03.2023 after duly complying with the procedure laid down u/s.148A of the Act. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s.148, nor to the notices u/s.142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, e-Assessment Unit of the Department(hereinafter called ‘AO’) had proceeded with framing best judgment assessment vide order dated 31.01.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs.81,16,253/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.40,00,000/- and Rs.41,16,253/- in respect of unexplained investment and unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act, respectively.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A) with a delay 601 days. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) has refused to condone the delay of 601 days and dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay. However, the ld.CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay and accordingly dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The ld.Counsel submits that the ld.CIT(A) ought not have dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, after hearing Sr.DR, we proceeded to dispose-off of the appeal as under.

Admittedly, the appellant filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay. The appellant had explained that the delay had occurred due to the reason that the appellant was completely relied on the consultant who was not able to fully comply to the show cause issued and failed to follow up notices issued by the Department and appellant himself was not aware of any proceedings or notices issued by the Department, it is only after notice for recovery of demand was issued to the appellant, the appellant had come to know of the assessment order, as a result, appellant was not able to file the appeal within the stipulated time.

On the other hand, ld.Sr.DR vehemently opposed the above submissions.

We heard Learned Sr.DR and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the grounds of delay by refusing the condonation of delay. Admittedly, there is a delay of 601 days in presenting the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The appellant filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant was completely relied on the consultant who was not able to fully comply to the show cause issued and failed to follow up notices issued by the Department and appellant himself was not aware of any proceedings or notices issued by the Department, it is only after notice for recovery of demand was issued to the appellant, the appellant had come to know of the assessment order, as a result, appellant was not able to file the appeal within the stipulated time. However, ld.CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay by stating that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay. On careful perusal of the findings of ld.CIT(A), it would be clear that the ld.CIT(A) had not given findings as to how the explanation offered by the appellant for delay does not constitute a reasonable cause. The averments made in the affidavit remain uncontroverted by the learned Sr.DR.

In M.Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V.Laxmi Narain Rao AIR 1973 SC 627, it was held that an uncontroverted affidavit shall be taken as an affidavit on fact. The averments made in the Affidavit seeking the condonation of delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A), remain uncontroverted by the learned ld.CIT(A). In the absence of any material to the contrary, the averments made in the affidavit cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that the ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits. In the circumstances, we direct ld.CIT(A) to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th May, 2026.