SRINIVASAN JAYANTHI,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), COIMBATORE

Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in these four appeals of the Assessee, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order.

For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No.3474/CHNY/2026 for A.Y.2012-13 are stated herein.

The NFAC, Delhi erred in treating the appeal preferred before them as time barred in terms of Section 249(2) of the Act and consequently erred in dismissing the appeal without assigning proper reasons and justification.

The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the statutorý requirement of filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order in terms of Section 249(2) of the Act was erroneously considered as mandatory and ought to have appreciated that the said provisions envisaged discretion vested with the authority to entertain belated appeals subject to the satisfaction on the reasons shown for the belated filing in terms of Section 249(3) of the Act, thereby vitiating the impugned order in its entirety.

The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that reason for filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority belatedly by 1480 days was captured in Form No. 35/petition for condonation incorporating the death of the appellant's husband and ought to have been considered the same as 'sufficient cause' and further ought to have appreciated that the non consideration of the said reasons would vitiate the order under consideration on this preliminary issue.

The NFAC, Delhi erred in impliedly confirming the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act and consequently erred in impliedly confirming the passing of the order of re-assessment without assigning proper reasons and justification.

The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act was without sanction of law and ought to have appreciated that the consequential re-assessment order was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law.

The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that having not followed the prescription of law/procedure for framing the re-assessment,, the consequential re-assessment order passed should be reckoned as núllity in law for want of jurisdiction.

The NFAC, Delhi erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 36,19,000/- being/the cash deposits made in the bank account maintained with Karur Vysya Bank during the assessment year under consideration as unexplained credit in terms of Section 68 of the Act in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification.

The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that provisions of Section 68 of the Act had no application to the present facts and in circumstances of the case and further ought to have appreciated that the pre-requisite conditions required for making an addition in terms of Section 68 of the Act were absent in the present case, thereby negating the findings in relation thereto.

The NFAC, Delhi erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 5,91,292/- being 0.5% of the total value of commodity transaction reckoned to have been carried out during the assessment year under consideration amounting to Rs. 11,82,58,310/- as income of the appellant in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification.

The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that having not brought on record the valid reasons for the arbitrary quantification of income at 0.5% of the total value of the commodity transaction was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law.

The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that, in any event, having not independently examined the financials transactions carried out during the assessment year under consideration, the consequential addition of the disputed value of the transaction as income of the appellant was wrong. erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law.

The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the entire re-computation of taxable total income was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law.

The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that having not adhered to the prescription of faceless regime, the consequential re-assessment order and appellate order passed should be reckoned as bad in law.

The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles natural justice would be nullity in law.

The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing.”

Briefly, the appellant is an Individual who is engaged in the business of running a canteen. 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 2012-13. Based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits in the savings bank account maintained with Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Vadavalli Branch and made commodity transaction of Rs.11,82,58,310/- during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration 2012-13, 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 20.11.2018 calling upon the appellant to file the Return of Income. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s.148 of the Act, nor notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer NFAC(hereinafter called ‘AO’) had proceeded with framing the best judgment assessment vide order dated 20.09.2021 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs.42,10,292/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of cash deposits in the bank account of Rs.36,19,000/- as unexplained money of the appellant as the appellant had failed to explain the source of cash deposits. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.5,91,292/- by estimating profit @0.5% on the commodity transaction of Rs.11,82,58,310/-.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A), with a delay of 1480 days. However, the Learned CIT(A) refused to condone the delay placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Akash Pack Tech (P) Limited vs M/s.Today Tea Limited in RFA 303/2020 & CM Appl. No.33795/2020 (stay) dated 27.09.2024, decision of ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of Liberal Association for Movement of People Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemption) [2024] 164 taxmann.com 83 (Kolkata Tribunal), accordingly, dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of delay.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The Learned Counsel submits that having regard to the explanation offered before him, the Learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicate the issues in appeal on merits.

On the other hand, Learned Sr.DR had clearly opposed the above submissions of the appellant and submitted that the appellant had failed to show the existence of the sufficient cause and reasonable cause for delay before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the appeal in limine taking into consideration the explanation offered by the appellant.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The solitary issued that arises for our consideration is whether the Learned CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 1408 days before him. Admittedly, the appellant filed an explanation stating the reasons for the delay in presenting the appeal before the Learned CIT(A) that she was under severe mental distress owing to the demise of her husband who was actually assisting in conducting the business of the appellant and as a result she could not coordinate with the tax consultants and timely steps for preparation of filing of appeal within the stipulated period. The said explanation was rejected by the Learned CIT(A) by holding as under :

We are of the considered opinion that the Learned CIT(A) while considering the petition for condonation of delay in presenting appeal before him, ought not have taken into consideration the conduct of the appellant during the course of the assessment proceedings. Admittedly, the husband of the appellant had passed away on 01.09.2019. The period commencing from March 2022 to 31.05.2022 was covered by Covid-19 Pandemic. was prevalent. Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that we are dealing with a period when the COVID- 19 pandemic was still prevalent. It is a known fact that during such time, time limits for various compliances were extended by the CBDT from time to time. So much so that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court had suo moto extended the time limits t file appeals/applications under various laws from time to time in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 – 441 ITR 722 (SC). Then, from 01.06.2020 to till the date of filing i.e.08.11.2025, the explanation of the appellant that she was mental distress owing to demise of her husband who was actually assisting in conduct of business of the appellant remains uncontroverted. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant had failed to show the existence of sufficient cause for delay. The judicial precedents relied upon by the Learned CIT(A) have no application to the facts of the present case, in as much as, the appellant had shown the existence of sufficient / reasonable cause for the delay. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and admitted the appeal and decide the issues in appeal on merits. Accordingly, the order of the Learned CIT(A) is set-aside to the file of Learned CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the issues in appeal on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

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

To sum up, all the above captioned appeals of the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st August, 2026.