THIPPANNAGOWDU SREENIVASULU,HOSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HOSUR, HOSUR

The Assessee in ITA No.1819/CHNY/2026 raised the following grounds of appeal :

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual engaged in the business of buying and selling of vegetables. The Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2011-12 was filed on 05.02.2013 disclosing income of Rs.1,79,093/-. No scrutiny assessment was made. However, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits of Rs.13,91,000/- in the bank account maintained with IDBI Bank during the previous year relevant to assessment year consideration, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax, accordingly a notice u/s.148 was issued on 27.03.2018. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s.148 of the Act nor notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the ITO, Ward-1, Hosur(hereinafter called ‘AO’) had proceeded with framing best judgment assessment vide order dated 06.12.2019 passed u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Act at a total income of Rs.13,91,900/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained money of the appellant as the appellant had not complied with hearing notices as no explanation was offered by the appellant in support of the cash deposit in the bank account.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, appellant preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), with a delay of 2183 days. The appellant filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay, however, the ld.CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay an dismissed the appeal limine o the grounds of delay placing reliance on certain judicial precedents.

Being aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

On the other hand, learned Sr.DR opposed the submissions of the appellant.

We heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration is whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing appeal. Admittedly, the appellant society had filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 2153 days and also filed a petition seeking to condone the delay. The contents of the affidavit seeking condonation are reproduced vide 2.4 of the ld.CIT(A)’s order. On mere perusal of the contents of the petition, it would be clear that the appellant attempted to explain the delay that the notices of levy were sent to email id i.e.sreenivasulu051970@gmail.com maintained by his Auditor, he did not get any notices and also submitted that since there is a family dispute with his brother, that the notices/communication have been not informed by his brother. The appellant submitted that he had come to know of the assessment order u/s.144 dated 06.12.2019 and tax demand for A.Y.2011-12 after receiving manual demand notice. However, the appellant did not reveal that how he had suddenly come to know of the assessment order now only.

In our considered opinion, the appellant had failed to show sufficient reason for the delay and the appellant is not diligent in pursuing legal remedy. No pleadings were made before us as to how the ratio of the decisions relied by the ld.CIT(A) are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we do not find any illegality and perversity in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the explanation offered by the appellant in support of the appellant is not bonafide and reasonable and the appellant was not diligent in pursuing the appeal, therefore, the ld.CIT(A) had rightly refused to condone the delay. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the order of ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the appellant.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1819/CHNY2026 is dismissed.

Since the facts and issues involved in the above captioned appeal is identical, therefore, our decision in ITA No.1819/CHNY/2026 for the shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present appeal i.e. ITA No.1820/CHNY/2026 also. Accordingly, grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed.

To sum up, both appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th June, 2026. (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; "दनांक / Dated : 12th June, 2026 SGR, Sr.PS आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant.

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, “डी” ब"च, चे"नई / DR, ITAT Chennai. गाड" फ़ाइल / Guard File.

GANGADHARA RAO SALEELA Date: 2026.06.18 15:05:07 +05'30'