TEMSUWATI KICHU,MOKOKCHUNG vs. ITO W-1(2) DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

The appeal is time-barred by 01 day in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) did not condone the delay for not furnishing any plausible explanation from the side of assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee being time- barred and also by simply upholding the order of ld. Assessing Officer.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay of one day. Hence the delay is condoned.

At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, it was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee mentioning that the appeal is not admitted for adjudication as it is delayed and not filed within the time limit provided and no sufficient cause has been provided by the appellant for the delay. Therefore, he pleaded to set aside the order passed by the revenue authorities.

On the other hand, it was the submission of the ld. Departmental Representative that the assessee failed to offer any explanation/supporting documents in respect of the grounds of appeal raised by him before the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. As per information on record, during the F.Y. 2016-17, the assessee made investments in time deposits with IDBI Bank Limited. However, on analysis of the bank statement provided by the Bank, it is seen that the assessee had made time deposits of Rs.17,50,000/- only during the relevant year. The assessee deposited cash of Rs.5,00,000/- on 21.04.2016 which was transferred to FD A/c on the same day. Similarly, on 01.10.2016, the assessee made cash deposit of Rs.12,50,000/- which was also transferred to FD A/c on the same day. In this regard, as the cash deposits of the assessee have been accounted for and brought to tax, no adverse inference is drawn with regard to the time deposits as the same was made out of the cash deposits of the assessee. As the assessee failed to comply with the Notice u/s 142(1) dated 17.10.2024, the ld. Assessing Officer determined the total taxable income of the assessee at Rs.17,50,000/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) just simply upholding the order of ld. Assessing Officer dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to insufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal within time limit and without going into merit of the case. As the assessee failed to comply with the Notice u/s 142(1) dated 17.10.2024, the ld. Assessing Officer determined the total taxable income of the

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29/05/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Accountant Member Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 29th day of May, 2026