RAMACHANDRAN GOPALAN SREENIVASAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-17(7), CHENNAI

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “ 1. The order of CIT(A) is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual. No regular return u/s.139(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013-14. Based on the information that the appellant sold immovable property during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration of Rs.1,15,37,570/-, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 27.03.2021. In response to notice u/s.148 appellant filed the return of income showing Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.1,08,95,774/- and claimed exemption u/s.54 of Rs.86,69,570/-. Against the said return of income, Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp Ward-17(7), Chennai (hereinafter called ‘AO’) vide order dated 31.03.2022, while doing so, the Assessing Officer computed the Capital Gains at Rs.16,70,042/- after allowing the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.11,87,959/- as against Rs.23,82,226/- claimed by the appellant.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A) who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 113 days.

The appellant also filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that delay had occurred as to the sudden demise of his brother Sri G.Gopala Raman at Mumbai(death certificate attached), appellant had to looked after final rites and rituals from time to time till 12th month after his brother’s death, he was unable to concentrate on matters which led to delay in filing of the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). However, the ld.CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay and accordingly, dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay.

At the outset of hearing, no one appeared for the hearing on behalf of the assessee.

We heard ld.Sr.DR and carefully perused the material available on record. We find that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay by refusing to condone the delay of 113 days.

The issue in the present appeal is whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in refusing the condonation of delay. Admittedly, the appellant filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay. The appellant had explained that the delay had occurred due to his brother’s sudden demise. 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 13th May, 2026.