SURYA PRAKASH,TUTICORIN vs. ITO, WARD I (2), TUTICORIN

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Honourable CIT (A) is erred in dismissing the ground of delay in filing the appeal without considering the facts of the case.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual. The Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2020-21 was filed on 07.01.2021 disclosing total income at Rs.4,98,000/-. Against the said return of income, no scrutiny assessment was made.

Subsequently, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits in the account maintained with the bank and subsequently transferred to the same to the Registration Department of Government Account. The Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s148 was issued on 29.03.2024 after duly complying with the procedure laid down u/s148A of the Act. In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the appellant filed return of income on 16.11.2024 disclosing income of Rs.4,98,000/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by e-Assessment Unit of the Department (hereinafter called ‘AO’) at a total income of Rs.9,67,520/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition under head “Business” of Rs.4,35,020/- disallowed deduction under Chapter-VIA of Rs.34,500/-.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, appellant preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 139 days. The assessee filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay. However, the ld.CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay and accordingly dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay.

Being aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), Learned Counsel submits that the ld.CIT(A) ought not have dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay by refusing to condone the delay having regard to the explanation offered by the appellant.

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

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the grounds of delay by refusing the condonation of delay. Admittedly, there is a delay of 139 days in presenting the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The appellant filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that earlier the appellant chose not to file the appeal against the assessment order, however, subsequently since the Assessing Authority had levied penalty in respect of addition made in the assessment, the appellant chose to file the appeal against the assessment order with delay, as a result, appellant was not able to file the appeal within the stipulated time. 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.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th June, 2026.