GOKUL PRASAD,KALLAKURICHI vs. ITO, WARD-I,, VILLUPURAM

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned online appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)] dated 23.01.2026 for Assessment Year 2023- 24. 2. Brief facts of the case: The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of astrological and spiritual activities. The assessee

ITA No 1343/Chny/2026 (AY 2023-24) Gokul Prasad Vs ITO, W(1) :: 2 :: filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 26.06.2023 declaring a total income of Rs.6,44,630/-. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the cash deposits made by the assessee and was not satisfied with the explanation furnished regarding the source thereof. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated a sum of Rs.38,67,213/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and subjected the same to tax under section 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer further disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80C amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- for want of supporting evidence. Consequently, the assessment was completed by making the aforesaid additions/disallowances. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, the ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 23.01.2026, dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that there was a delay of 152 days in filing the appeal and declined to condone the same. As a result, the issues raised by the assessee were not adjudicated on merits. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has prayed for condonation of delay and has also sought an opportunity to place the relevant documents and explanations before the appellate authority. 5. The ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was neither wilful nor deliberate and occurred due to bona fide reasons beyond the control of the assessee. It was further submitted that the assessee possesses relevant documents and evidences to substantiate the source of cash deposits as well as the claim for deduction under

ITA No 1343/Chny/2026 (AY 2023-24) Gokul Prasad Vs ITO, W(1) :: 3 :: section 80C and that the matter deserves to be examined on merits in the interest of justice. 6. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A) was dismissed in limine solely on account of delay of 152 days in filing the appeal and that the issues arising from the assessment order were not examined on merits. The settled legal position is that procedural delays should not ordinarily come in the way of adjudication of disputes on merits, particularly where substantial additions have been made and the assessee seeks an opportunity to explain and substantiate his claims. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in the provisions relating to condonation of delay deserves to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the additions involved, and in order to afford the assessee an effective opportunity to contest the assessment on merits, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law. The ld. CIT(A) shall condone the delay, admit the appeal, and adjudicate all grounds raised by the assessee after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to diligently prosecute the appeal and furnish all relevant documents, evidences, and explanations in

ITA No 1343/Chny/2026 (AY 2023-24) Gokul Prasad Vs ITO, W(1) :: 4 :: support of his case. Failure to do so shall entitle the ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on the basis of the material available on record. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 01st day of June, 2026, in Chennai.

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