SENDHILKUMAR VEERARAGAVAN,THIRUVARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, THIRUVARUR

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that there had been delay of 193 days in filing the first appeal owing to the fact that there had been failure on the part of a local sales tax Practitioner who had promised to file the income tax appeal by himself but had been dragging on the matter endlessly without translating his words into any action

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual engaged in the retail trade of coconut oil. No regular return of income under the provisions of section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed by the appellant for the Assessment Year 2017-18. However, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits of Rs.16,20,560/- in the bank account 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 on 25.03.2024 calling upon the appellant to file the return of income. In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the appellant filed return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 04.04.2024 disclosing income of Rs.2,92,850/-. Against the said Return of Income, the assessment was completed by the Assessment Unit of the Department (hereinafter called ‘AO’) vide order dated 11.02.2025 passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs.63,13,350/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.60,20,500/- being cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained money of the appellant rejecting the explanation of the appellant that the cash deposits were made out of the sale proceeds of the coconuts oil and duly supported by the VAT Returns.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Learned CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 193 days.

Being aggrieved by the order of the Learned CIT(A), appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was called upon, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice for hearing. Therefore, after hearing Sr.DR we proceed to disposal of the appeal.

We heard the Learned Sr.DR and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the Learned CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 193 days in presenting the appeal before him. Admittedly, the appellant offered an explanation before the Learned CIT(A) stating that the delay had occurred as the appellant was not aware of the assessment order, as it was uploaded only online not served physically and he became aware of the assessment order only while uploading the return of income for the subsequent year.

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 and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st August, 2026.