RAJAN RAVICHANDRAN,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TIRUVANNAMALAI

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal :

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 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 was filed. However, based on the information that the appeal made time deposit of Rs.68,00,000/- with the bank during the previous year relevant to assessment year consideration, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act issued on 31.03.2022. However, the appellant neither complied with the notice u/s.148 of the Act, nor the notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act and 142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the Faceless Assessment Unit of the Department (hereinafter called ‘AO’) had proceeded with framing best judgment assessment vide order dated 22.03.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs.71,60,650/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of term deposit of Rs.68 lakhs for the failure of the appellant to explain the source of time deposits.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A), with a delay of 645 days. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay 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. At the outset, there is a delay of 10 days in presenting appeal before this Tribunal. The appellant filed an Affidavit seeking condonation of delay by stating that the delay had occurred on account of the fact that the appeal prepared by the Tax Advocate sent to the appellate was misplaced and as they were subsequently traced, the appeal was filed with a delay of 10 days.

We have perused the Affidavit and the averments made in the Affidavit. The averments made in the affidavit remain uncontroverted by Learned CIT- DR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V.Laxmi Narain Rao AIR 1973 SC 627, held that an uncontroverted affidavit shall be taken as an affidavit on fact. In the light of this legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the delay had occurred in filing the appeal on account of Bonafide reasons and the explanation cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay, hence, the delay is condoned. Accordingly, we admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

The issue that arises four our consideration is whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in refusing the condonation of delay of 645 days. Admittedly, the appellant filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay. The appellant had filed Affidavit seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant was a Diabetic Patient and due to heavy sugar, his knee was amputated and he was bedridden and became immobile and could not attend to this normal matter. The ld.CIT(A) dealt with above explanation as under : “In this regard, I have gone through the medical records submitted by the appellant and have observed that the surgery (below knee amputation) was carried out in the case of appellant on 17.10.2024 and date of admission in the hospital for undergoing the said procedure was 16.10.2024. Therefore, if the period from 16.10.2024 to 27.01.2025 (date of admission in the hospital for below knee amputation to date of filing of appeal) is excluded on medical/ humanitarian grounds also, there is a delay of 542 days in filing the appeal (i.e. from 22.04.2023 to 15.10.2024) for which the appellant has no explanation to offer.”

The finding recorded by the ld.CIT(A) that there was no explanation for the delay of 542 days remains uncontroverted. Even before us also, no explanation was rendered as to the delay of 542 days. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) had rightly refused to condone the delay of 542 days. We do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the assessee, accordingly grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th June, 2026.