SIRANJEEVI JAGANATHAN ,TAMIL NAIDU vs. ITO, WARD-1, TAMIL NAIDU

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual deriving income under head “Salaries”. The return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 was not filed under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax, based on the information available that the appellant earned income of Rs.5,34,280/- on execution of contract. No regular return of income was filed. Accordingly, a notice u/s.148 was issued on 26.03.2021. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s.148 nor the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Income Tax Act calling for the information. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer had proceeded with the best judgment order vide order dated 28.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act at a total income of Rs.6,07,587/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition on contract receipts of Rs.5,34,280/- received from GJR Housing Private Limited salary income of Rs.73,307/-.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 987 days. The appellant also filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant was not aware of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and he had no knowledge of ITBA Portal. However, ld.CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of delay.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The ld.Counsel submits that the ld.CIT(A) ought not have condoned the delay having regard to the explanation offered before him explaining the reasons for the delay. On merits, he submits that Assessing Officer ought not have taxed the entire gross receipt of contract receipts.

On the other hand, Learned Sr.DR opposed the above submission submits that the appellant neither cooperated before the Assessing Officer nor the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the appellant cannot be granted any indulgence by this Tribunal.

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 refusing to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay. Admittedly, there was a delay of 987 days in presenting the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The appellant offered an explanation explaining reasons for delay in filing appeal which is extracted by the ld.CIT(A) at para 2.1 of the impugned order. However, ld.CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limjine on the grounds of delay.

On careful perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that the ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with the explanation offered by the appellant explaining the reasons for the delay. There was no finding rendered by the ld.CIT(A) as to how the explanation rendered by the appellant does not constitute a reasonable cause. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires a remand to the file of ld.CIT(A) for a denovo consideration of the explanation for delay in presenting appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and decide the issues in appeal on merit after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose Order pronounced in the open court on 19th May, 2026.