RAJENDRA PRASAD THILAGAVATHI,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, THIRUVANNAMALAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)] dated 18.09.2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 96 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay.

ITA No 1306/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18) Rajendra Prasad Thilagavathi Vs ITO, W(1) :: 2 :: We have carefully considered the contents of the condonation petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof. Having regard to the facts and circumstances explained therein, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case: The assessee had not filed the return of income for the relevant assessment year. Based on information available with the Department, it was noticed that the assessee had entered into certain financial transactions during the year, including purchase of an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.35,55,000/-, cash deposits aggregating to Rs.1,04,00,000/- in a bank account maintained with Karur Vysya Bank, and receipt of interest income amounting to Rs.1,76,105/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Avashiya Agencies and had disclosed a turnover of Rs.3,02,680/- and total income of Rs.2,03,830/-. The assessee explained that the funds utilized for purchase of the property were sourced from the sale of another immovable property for a consideration of Rs.70,00,000/- on 25.05.2016 and claimed exemption under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, thereby resulting in nil capital gains. However, the Assessing Officer noticed certain discrepancies in the claim relating to construction expenditure amounting to Rs.33,26,160/-. Notices were issued for verification of the genuineness of the construction expenses and supporting evidences. Since no satisfactory response was received and the supporting documents were not furnished, the Assessing Officer disallowed

ITA No 1306/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18) Rajendra Prasad Thilagavathi Vs ITO, W(1) :: 3 :: 50% of the construction expenditure claimed, amounting to Rs.16,63,080/-, and completed the assessment accordingly. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 18.09.2025, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish cogent documentary evidence in support of the claims made and consequently confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal seeking appropriate relief. The assessee has also prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to substantiate the claim with relevant documentary evidence. 6. The ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. It was contended that the assessee was not conversant with the procedures relating to e-filing and compliance through the income-tax portal. It was further submitted that although a notice dated 12.01.2026 was issued, the physical copy of the notice was received only on 23.01.2026, after the stipulated compliance date, thereby depriving the assessee of an effective opportunity to furnish the requisite documents and explanations. The ld. AR therefore submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed ex parte without affording adequate opportunity of hearing and prayed that the matter be restored for fresh consideration.

ITA No 1306/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18) Rajendra Prasad Thilagavathi Vs ITO, W(1) :: 4 :: 7. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee had failed to substantiate the claims with supporting evidence. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal primarily on account of the assessee's failure to furnish supporting documents in respect of the claims made before him. The assessee has explained the circumstances which prevented timely compliance and has expressed willingness to furnish all relevant evidences in support of the claim if one more opportunity is granted. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and bearing in mind the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee should be afforded one final opportunity to substantiate the claims before the appellate authority. Substantial justice would be served if the matter is restored for fresh adjudication on merits rather than being decided on technical grounds. Accordingly, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The ld. CIT(A) shall afford the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard and shall consider all evidences and submissions that may be filed by the assessee before passing a speaking order. The assessee is directed to diligently prosecute the appeal and actively participate in the appellate proceedings by furnishing all relevant documents and details as may be called for by the appellate authority.

ITA No 1306/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18) Rajendra Prasad Thilagavathi Vs ITO, W(1) :: 5 ::

Sd/- Sd/- (प�ावती एस) (मनु कुमार िग#र) (PADMAVATHY S) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद$या/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %या�यक सद$य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

चे%नई/Chennai, 'दनांक/Dated: 01st June, 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS

आदेश क� ��त(ल)प अ*े)षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF