PRABAKARAN SHEELA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, THANJAVUR

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 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits of Rs.97,31,350/- in the bank account maintained with HDFC Bank during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer(JAO) formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 f the Act was issued on 11.04.2022 after duly complying with the procedure laid down u/s.148A of the Act. In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the appellant filed Return of Income. Against the said Return of Income, assessment was completed by the e-Assessment Unit of the Department (hereinafter called ‘AO’) vide order dated 08.01.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs.4,14,62,927/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of cash deposits and the credits found in the account maintained with HDFC Bank of Rs.4,11,59,477/- as unexplained money of the appellant for the failure of the appellant to offer a plausible explanation in support of the source of the said credits.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A), who vide impugned directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to the extent of Rs.2,18,99,083/- being the actual amount of credits found in the bank account maintained with HDFC Bank.

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 the Assessing Officer had failed to grant 07 clear days to respond to the notices issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act and he further submits that notice issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 11.04.2022 is barred by limitation. He further submits that the ld.CIT(A) ought not to have set-aside assessment order.

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

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises in the present appeal whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in refused to condone the delay dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground of delay. The contention of the appellant that as the assessment order was received by assessee on 08.01.2024 remains uncontroverted. It appears that the ld.CIT(A), went by date of the assessment order for the purpose reckoning the limitation period for filing appeal. It is settled position of law that it is actual date of receipt of the assessment order has to be considered for the purpose of computing limitation period. Therefore, the findings of the ld.CIT(A) are reversed and the matter is restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo disposal of the appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th June, 2026.