RAJINI,CUDDALORE vs. ITO, WARD-2,, CUDDALORE

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The order of the Learned AO/CIT(A) is bad in law, opposed to the facts of the case and is also against the principles of natural justice.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual. No regular Return of Income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act was filed for the Assessment Year 2020-21. However, based on the information that appellant made cash deposits of Rs.79,94,500/- in the bank account maintained with Indian Bank and also made a cash withdrawals of Rs.88,98,000/- from the account maintained with Indian Bank, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2024 after duly complying with the procedure laid down u/s.148A of the Act. In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the appellant filed Return of Income on 12.11.2024 disclosing income of Rs.4,52,840/-. Against the said Return of Income, the assessment was completed by the e-Assessment of the Department (hereinafter called ‘AO’) vide order dated 28.02.2025 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs.48,46,342/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of 20% purchases of Rs.2,09,16,711/- for the failure of the appellant to furnish documentary evidence in support of the purchases made. Similarly, the Assessing Officer disallowed 10% salaries and wages of Rs.9,84,600/- for the alleged failure of the appellant to furnish documentary evidence in support of the expenditure incurred on salaries and wages. Similarly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1 lakh rupees being the income received from Power Mech Projects Limited and IL & FL Tamilnadu Power Company Limited based on the information contained in Form 26AS.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A), with a delay of 66 days. The ld.CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The ld.Authorised Representative submits that the ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay having regard to the explanation offered explaining reasons for delay. He submits that the appellant had filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay explaining that the delay had occurred on account of the fact that the appellant had no knowledge of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. He had come know of it only when the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice proposing to levy of penalty on 13.05.2025.

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 66 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 occurred on account of the fact that the appellant had no knowledge of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. He had come know of it only with the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice proposing to levy of penalty on 13.05.2025, as a result, 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 24th June, 2026.