LAKSHMANAN VADIGICHETTI,KRISHNAGIRI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KRISHNAGIRI

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1) The Impugned Order is bad, erroneous and unsustainable in law

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual engaged in the business of trading I textiles. The appellant had not filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2019-20 under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. However, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits aggregating to Rs.94,70,550/- in the bank account maintained with City Union Bank and Axis Bank, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued for the A.Y.2019-20 on 31.03.2023 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 nor the notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the circumstances, the ITO, Ward-1, Krishnagiri (hereinafter called ‘AO’) had proceeded with framing best judgment assessment order by treating the entire cash deposits and other credits found in the Savings Bank Account maintained with Axis Bank and City Union Bank aggregating to Rs.1,46,22,103/- as unexplained money of the appellant.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 134 days. The appellant filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that the delay in filing of appeal occurred on account of family disputes. However, the ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay by refusing to condone the delay by holding that the appellant could not demonstrate any sufficient cause for the delay after referring to numerous judicial precedents.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present. The Learned Counsel submits that the ld.CIT(A) ought not have dismissed the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay. The appellant had filed an Affidavit explaining reasons for the delay.

On the other hand, ld.Sr.DR vehemently opposed the above submissions.

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 134 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 delay in filing of appeal occurred on account of family disputes, appellant was not able 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 result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th May, 2026.