JOHNSIJU,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NCW-14(2), CHENNAI

The Assessee 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 provision of section 139 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18 was filed. However, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits of Rs.16,79,500/- in the bank account during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/.142(1) of the Act on 01.01.2018 calling upon the appellant to file the return of income. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s.142(1) nor 142(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. In the circumstances, the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp Ward-142(2) Chennai (hereinafter called ‘AO’) proceeded with framing of the best judgment assessment vide order dated 21.09.2019 passed u/s.144 at a total income of Rs.9,59,55,177/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer brought to tax entire credit of Rs.9,59,55,177/- found in the account maintained with South Indian Bank as unexplained money of the appellant, for the failure of the appellant to offer the plausible explanation as to the source of the said credits.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 818 days. However, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning on the grounds of delay for non-prosecution.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The ld.Counsel submits that the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay having regard to the explanation filed before him. He further submits that the ld.CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution passed ex-parte order. 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 as the appellant was going through multiple issues on personal and professional and also due to deterioration of health, as a result appellant could not to file the appeal within the stipulated time. The averments made in the affidavit remain uncontroverted by the learned Sr.DR.

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

We heard rival submissions 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 818 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 going through multiple issues on personal and professional and also due to deterioration of health, appellant not 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 15th May, 2026.