CHIDAMBARAM DINAKARAN,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 10(6), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Ld. CIT(A)"). erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant ex parte, without duly considering and adjudicating upon the submissions and materials placed on record by the appellant, thereby rendering the impugned order arbitrary, unjust, and in violation of principles of natural justice

Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual. The Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 was filed on 31.03.2014 disclosing total income at Rs.1,50,630/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed at a total income of Rs.2,76,50,630/-. The assessment was completed by ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle-20, Chennai (hereinafter called ‘AO’) vide order dated 30.03.2015 passed u/s.143(3) at a total income of Rs.2,76,50,630/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,75,00,000/- by holding that the appellant had received the money on sale of satellite rights to Sun TV which was not offered to tax.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the facts leading to the addition dismissed the appeal.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 882 days in filing the present appeal before us. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant was not aware of the order passed u/s.250 of the Act as the said order was sent to the Email Id of the Former Auditor of the appellant and the Former Auditor had not communicated the order u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

We had carefully perused the averments contained in the Affidavit seeking the condonation of delay. We find that the reasons stated for the delay is that the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) u/s.250 of the Act was served through Email Id of the Former Auditor of the appellant with whom he had a differences and the Former Auditor had not communicated the order u/s.250 of the Act. However, the appellant had not stated that how he had come to know of the order passed u/s.250 of the Act now. He has also not furnished the details of the Former Auditor etc. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the explanation offered by the appellant is not bonafide and reasonable and therefore, we do not find any reason to condone the delay, accordingly, we dismissed appeal in limine on the ground of delay.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th May, 2026.