SARAVANAN ARUMUGAM,AMBATTUR vs. ITO, NCW-7(3), CHENNAI

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “I respectfully submit that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not correct based on my facts and situation. My appeal has been rejected only on the ground of delay of 601 days, without properly understanding my circumstances and the genuine reasons explained by me. I am a small individual running a typing and Xerox centre, and I do not have proper knowledge about income tax laws and online faceless proceedings. The assessment in my case was carried out under the faceless system, and I was not fully aware of the notices and proceedings happening online.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual engaged in the business of rendering of typing services. The appellant had not filed Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer(JAO) formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax, based on the information that the appellant purchased an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.40 lakhs and also made cash deposits of Rs.24,16,200/- in the bank account maintained with IDBI Bank during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s.148 of the Act nor the notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, e-Assessment Unit of the Department (hereinafter called ‘AO’) had proceeded with framing the best judgment assessment order vide order dated 31.01.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs.81,16,253/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.40 lakhs being the investment in the immovable property as unexplained investment of the appellate and also made addition of Rs.41,16,253/- being cash deposits in the bank account for the failure of the appellant to offer any plausible explanation in support of the source of the cash deposits.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A), with a delay of 601 days who vide impugned order had dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of delay by refusing to condone the delay of 601 days.

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

We heard rival submissions 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 of 601 days dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the ground of delay. The reasons given for the delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) were extracted by the ld.CIT(A) vide para 2.1 of the impugned order. A mere perusal of the explanation, it would be clear that the only explanation offered by the appellant is that he is unaware of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority and he had come to know of that only on receipt of the recovery proceedings notice on 08.10.2025. However, the ld.CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay by referring to the numerous judicial precedents.

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 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 stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th June, 2026.