SUBBAIYA GOUNDER RAMASWAMY ,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), TIRUPPUR

Since identical facts and issues are involved in both these 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.2067/CHNY/2026 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 are stated herein:

The Assessee in ITA No.2067/CHNY/2026 raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) The Impugned Order is unjust, unreasonable and bad in law. 2) The First Appellate Authority erred in not considering the submissions properly. 3) In respect of the addition made under Short Term Capital Gains, the First Appellate Authority erred in considering the very fundamental factum of cost of acquisition involved in the subject property. 4) The appellant prays that as the assessment has been completed by order under sec.144 and since the appellant, for reasons beyond control, could respond to the notices issued, the assessment may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer, in the interest of justice. And for other grounds and reasons that may be adduced later, the Appellant humbly prays that the present appeal may be admitted, duly considered and justice be rendered.” 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual. No regular Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 was filed by the appellant under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. However, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits of Rs.25,01,000/- in the saving bank maintained with Corporation Bank and Rs.39,17,750/- deposited in the saving bank account maintained with South Indian Bank during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration, And also, based on the information that the appellant had received Rent amounting to Rs.6,85,000/- and sold immovable property for consideration of Rs.71,87,500/- during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration, 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 09.04.2022 after duly complying with the procedure laid down u/s.148A of the Act. However, the appellant neither complied with the notice u/s.148 of the Act, nor the notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act.

In the circumstances, the e-Assessment Unit of the Department (hereinafter called ‘AO’) had proceeded with framing best judgment assessment vide order dated 31.01.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs.1,42,91,250/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made additions of unexplained cash deposits of Rs.64,18,750/-, rent received of Rs.6,85,000/- and short term capital gain of Rs.71,87,500/- for the failure of the appellant to explain the source of cash deposits made.

Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The ld.CIT(A) however dismissed appeal in limine for non-prosecution without entering into the merits of the additions.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 195 days in presenting appeal before this Tribunal. The appellant had filed an Affidavit seeking condonation of delay. The appellant filed an Affidavit seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that appellant is not well versed with computer knowledge, even the notices issued by FAA were not responded to promptly and also the person who was looking after the tax matters had not responded and filed reply in time promptly, as a result, appellant was not able to file the appeal within the stipulated time.

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.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the appellant for non-prosecution without entering into the merits of the addition. The CIT(A) without dealing with the contentions of the appellant merely dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. As contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act the CIT(A) is required to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon before passing the order. It is the settled position of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal ex-parte, he is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) as under :

Therefore, in the light of the above legal position, we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the ld.CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal denovo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. All the contentions raised by the appellant are left open for consideration before the ld.CIT(Appeals).

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.2068/CHNY/2026 12. Since the facts and issues involved in the above captioned appeal is identical, therefore, our decision in ITA No.2027/CHNY/2026 for the A.Y.2016-17 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present appeal also in ITA No.2068/CHNY/2026 for the A.Y.2018-19. Accordingly, grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.

To sum up, both the captioned appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th June, 2026.