DURAISAMY PANDIAN,CUDDALORE vs. ITO, WARD-2,, CUDDALORE

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned online appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)] dated 27.01.2025 for Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. In the instant appeal, the registry has noted the delay of 308 days in filing the captioned appeal. We have gone through the condonation petition along with affidavit filed, we find that the reasons given by the assessee are sufficient cause for delay in filing

ITA No 613/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18) Duraisamy Pandian Vs JCIT :: 2 :: the captioned appeals. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of trading agricultural tools. On 30.04.2018, he submitted his income tax return, reporting a total income of Rs.2,39,450/-. It was observed that the appellant made cash deposits totaling Rs.1,27,10,830/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer added Rs.11,14,157/- under the category of Income from Business and Profession, invoking the provisions of Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act. 4. Dissatisfied with the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the appellant filed an appeal with the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], praying the annulment of the assessment order on the basis that the Assessing Officer failed to consider relevant evidence and misapplied Section 44AD(5) of the Act. Nonetheless, the ld.CIT(A), in an order dated 27.01.2025, dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to provide supporting documents and evidence related to the matter at hand, thereby affirming the Assessing Officer's determination. 5. Further aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s order, the appellant has lodged the present appeal with this Tribunal, seeking an opportunity to present the pertinent documentation. It was also asserted that the learned CIT(A) issued the contested order ex parte, citing the appellant's failure to submit the necessary evidence relevant to the issues raised, without providing a fair opportunity for hearing. 6. Additionally, the appellant's Authorized Representative argued that sufficient notice or communication regarding the opportunity to present evidence was not adequately provided to the appellant.

ITA No 613/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18) Duraisamy Pandian Vs JCIT :: 3 :: 7. Conversely, the ld. DR defended the order of the CIT(A) and requested the dismissal of the appeal. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the order of the ld. CIT(A). We find the reasons are sufficient cause. Hence, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be granted a final opportunity to substantiate the issue under consideration. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The ld.CIT(A) shall afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to diligently prosecute the appeal and actively participate in the appellate proceedings. Assessee is also directed to participate in the appellate proceedings diligently. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 19th day of May 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (इंतूरी रामा राव) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद*य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद*य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

चे�नई/Chennai, +दनांक/Dated: 19th May, 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS

आदेश क! ��त,ल-प अ.े-षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF