ARJUNAN RAMESH,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, NCW-8(4), CHENNAI

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 20.11.2025 for Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. The assessee had made cash deposits to tune of Rs.36,14,890 during the demonetization period in his bank account. It was also

ITA No 618/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18) Arjunan Ramesh Vs ITO, NCW 8(4) :: 2 :: found that the assessee Shri Arjunan Ramesh, had not filed the ROI for the A.Y.2017-18 within the due dates of filing the same u/s 139(1) of the Income tax act. When there was no response of the assessee to the impugned notices, another notice was issued to the bank and sought statements from Indusind Bank, Mowlivakkam Branch, Chennai. It was found that the assessee's turnover from the business of Dairy product, on the basis of credits in the bank statement is arrived at Rs. 2,44,83,182/- in the F.Y.2016-17. Further the income from the business is assessed at the rate of 3% of the total sales turnover which works out to Rs. 7,34,495.In this context it is concluded that the source for the cash deposits (demonetized notes) made during the demonetization period amounting to Rs.34,75,740/- is unexplained money u/s 69A and assessed to tax u/s 115BBE. 3. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his order dated 20.11.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on account of delay of 2028 days in filing the appeal. 4. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Ld CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal and sought condonation of delay and an opportunity to file the relevant/necessary documents required by the notices. 5. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. On hearing both sides and perusing the material available on record, we find that the appeal filed by the assessee before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was dismissed in limine on

ITA No 618/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18) Arjunan Ramesh Vs ITO, NCW 8(4) :: 3 :: account of delay of 2028 days in filing the appeal without adjudicating the issues on merits. 7. The facts borne out from the record reveal that the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits made during the demonetization period amounting to Rs.34,75,740/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income-tax Act and assessed the same under section 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer further estimated the income from the dairy business at 3% of the turnover determined from the bank statements obtained from IndusInd Bank, Mowlivakkam Branch, Chennai. 8. Before us, the assessee submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances as referred in para 7.2 of impugned order, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period and sought one more opportunity to place all relevant materials and evidences before the appellate authority for proper adjudication of the issues involved. It was further submitted that the assessee is willing to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and file all necessary details/documents in support of his case. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be condoned. It is a settled principle of law that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations and an assessee should not be denied opportunity of hearing merely on account of procedural delay, particularly when the additions involve substantial tax liability. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 2028 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and set aside the impugned order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the ld. CIT(A). The matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal

ITA No 618/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18) Arjunan Ramesh Vs ITO, NCW 8(4) :: 4 :: afresh on merits, in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to promptly comply with the notices and file necessary details/documents without seeking unnecessary adjournments. 9. 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/- (इंतूरी रामा राव) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद*य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद*य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

चे�नई/Chennai, +दनांक/Dated: 01 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