V. DEVARAJ SUPERMARKET,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VILLUPURAM

Since identical facts and issues are involved in these three appeals, these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts relevant in the ITA No.978/CHNY/2026 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 are stated herein:

The Assessee in ITA No.978/CHNY/2026 raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The order passed by the Learned CIT (A), is opposed to law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and is therefore unsustainable. 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in not admitting appeal and not condoning delay in filing of appeal. 3. Learned CIT(A) ought to have provided opportunity in filing of submission based on merits of the case 4. Learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that appellant firm was not aware that assessment proceedings were going on. Further, after the assessment was completed and order was passed, appellant firm was informed by appellant partners friend that no action is required. However, after demand was raised, appellant firm, reached a consultant and was informed that additions have been made and appeal needs to be filed. Appellant humbly submits that appellant firm was misguided that no action is required as GST returns are filed. Hence there was delay in filing of appeal. 5. Learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition made by Learned Assessing Officer of estimating business income of appellant at 8% inspite of tax audit report being filed. 6. Appellant prays deletion of entire addition of INR 34,93,908 7. Appellant seeks adequate opportunity to present the facts of the case and case may be heard based on merits of the case

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A) who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay. The appellant also filed petition seeking the condonation of delay. However, the ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay 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 Learned Counsel submits that the ld.CIT(A) ought not have dismissed the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay.

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

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the issue arises for our consideration is whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 30 days. Admittedly, there was a delay in filing of appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The appellant also filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that delay had occurred on account of the fact that the appellant was ignorant of the assessment proceedings and as no notice was served upon him. However, ld.CIT(A) without giving a findings as to how the said explanation does not constitute a reasonable cause for delay merely refused to condone the delay by giving a bold finding that the appellant had not shown any sufficient reason for delay. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remand to the file of ld.CIT(A) with a direction to consider the explanation offered by the appellant and pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.978/CHNY/2026 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. ITA Nos.979 & 980/CHNY/2026

Since the facts and issues involved in the above captioned appeals are identical, therefore, our decision in ITA No.978/CHNY/2026 for the A.Y. 2020- 21 shall apply mutatis mutandis to both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.979 & 980/CHNY/2026 for the A.Y.2020-21.

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.979 & 980/CHNY/2026 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

To sum up, all the three appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st May, 2026.