SUBBIAH POUNEESWARAN,SIVAKASI vs. ITO, WARD-3, , VIRUDHUNAGAR

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Respectable Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi was not justified while passing the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act dated 16/01/2026 for the Assessment year 2018-19 dismissing the claim of appellant.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual deriving income from other sources. The return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19 was filed on 30.01.2019 declaring income of Rs.2,49,920/-.

Subsequently, based on the information that the appellant made investment with Shri Renuka Mata Multistate Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income got escaped income assessment from tax, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 was issued on 31.03.2022 after duly complying with the procedure laid down u/s.148(A) of the Act. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s.148, nor to the notices u/s.142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the circumstances, the e-Assessment Unit of the Department(hereinafter called ‘AO’) had proceeded with framing best judgment assessment order vide order dated 02.03.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs.57,27,920/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.54,78,000/- being cash deposits with Shri Renuka Mata Multistate Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., treating as unexplained money for the failure of the appellant to explain the source of cash deposit.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A) filed with a delay of 237 days. The ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The ld.Counsel submits that the ld.CIT(A) ought not have dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay having regard to the explanation offered before him on the ground that appellant was not aware of the order passed by the Assessing Officer as it was not served.

On the other hand, ld.Sr.DR vehemently opposed the above submissions.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the grounds of delay by refusing the condonation of delay. Admittedly, there is a delay of 237 days in presenting the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The appellant filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that the delay in filing of appeal had occurred on account of appellant was not aware of the order passed by the Assessing Officer as it was not served, as a result, the appellant was not able to file the appeal within the stipulated time. However, ld.CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay by stating that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay. On careful perusal of the findings of ld.CIT(A), it would be clear that the ld.CIT(A) had not given findings as to how the explanation offered by the appellant for delay does not constitute a reasonable cause. 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 26th May, 2026.