MANIMUTHU KANNIAPPAN DASS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-4(3), CHENNAI

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1 That the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), (NFAC) dated 17.12.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083799346(1) for the assessment year under consideration is contrary to law, facts and in the circumstances of the case.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay of 107 days in filing the appeal, despite the appellant being a 69-year-old senior citizen suffering from multiple health issues and facing genuine hardship

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), (NFAC) failed to appreciate that the delay was neither deliberate nor due to negligence, but was occasioned by circumstances beyond the control of the appellant, and hence ought to have been condoned in the interest of substantial justice

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), (NFAC) erred in holding that the appellant failed to establish "sufficient cause" under section 249(3) of the Act. despite the appellant being a 69-year-old senior citizen suffering from multiple health ailments, which constituted a reasonable and bonafide cause for the delay

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), (NFAC) erred in law in rejecting the condonation application solely on the ground that no medical certificates or documentary evidence were filed, ignoring the settled legal position that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantial justice.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), (NFAC) erred in making subjective observations that ailments such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity are merely "lifestyle diseases and would not incapacitate the appellant, without any medical basis and beyond the scope of appellate adjudication

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), (NFAC) failed to appreciate that the delay involved was only 107 days, which is neither inordinate nor deliberate, and that no mala fide intention, dilatory tactics, or conscious negligence could be attributed to the appellant.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), (NFAC) failed to consider that the appellant had a strong prima facie case on merits regarding the levy of penalty under section 271D, and that denial of condonation has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.

erred in not The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), (NFAC) appreciating that penalty proceedings under section 271D are quasi-criminal in nature and require careful consideration on merits, which was completely denied by dismissing the appeal on limitation alone.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), (NFAC) is arbitrary, excessive, and unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.” 3. At the time of hearing, no one attended for the hearing.

Briefly the facts of the case are that appellant is an Individual. The return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 was filed disclosing the capital gain of Rs.1,85,061/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the e-Assessment Unit of the Department(hereinafter called ‘AO’) vide order dated 06.05.2023 passed u/s.147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs.6,46,720/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that appellant received on- money cash consideration of Rs.49 lakhs on the sale of immovable property on 15.09.2016. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that the appellant had violated the provisions of Section 269SS. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued u/s.271 r.w.s 271D of the Income Tax Act. In response to show cause notice, the appellant submitted that he accepted cash components of Rs.3 lakhs out of the total consideration of Rs.49 lakhs as he did not want to loose deal and therefore no penalty could be levied as it constitutes a reasonable cause for accepting the consideration in cash. However, the Assessing Officer rejecting the above explanation had proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs.3 lakhs vide order dated 06.12.2023 u/s.271D of the Act.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A) who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 107 days in filing the appeal before him.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. When the appeal was called for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.

On the other hand, Learned CIT-DR submits that ld.CIT(A) rightly refused to condone the delay in the absence of any evidence in support of the explanation offered by the appellant. After hearing Sr.DR, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal.

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 107 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 appellant is a senior citizen undergoing medical treatment for high blood pressure, diabetic and other health issues, as a result of severe health conditions made it difficult for the appellant not 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 19th May,2026.