MUTHUSAMY RAMKUMAR,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , POLLACHI

आदेश/O R D E R

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [‘ld.CIT(A)’ in short] for Assessment Year 2015-16.

2 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.771/Chny/2026 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.771/Chny/2026 No.771/Chny/2026 No.771/Chny/2026

account various debit/credit entries in all the four bank accounts, the AO

by adopting gross profit rate at 8% on total credit deposits found in all the

bank accounts to an extent of Rs.2,29,64,836/- determined the profit at

Rs.18,37,186/- vide his order dated 29.12.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s.

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ in short]. Having

not satisfied with the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred an

appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 101 days. The assessee filed

reasons explaining for the said delay before the ld.CIT(A) which is

reproduced from page no.3 to 6 of the impugned order.

explanation and the assessee has fair case in succeeding before the

ld.CIT(A). He prayed to remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) with

a direction to consider the delay condonation petition and condone the

delay and adjudicate the issues on merits.

order and argued that having huge deposits in all the four bank accounts,

assessee did not file the return of income and no proper reply has been

filed in response to notices u/s. 148 of the Act and also u/s. 142(1) of the

3 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.771/Chny/2026 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.771/Chny/2026 No.771/Chny/2026 No.771/Chny/2026

Act. Further, the assessee did not explain a sufficient cause in filing the

appeal belatedly before the ld.CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) rightly concluded

that the assessee failed to show sufficient cause in filing the appeal in

time.

and circumstances of the case, we note that the assessee explained the

reasons which are reproduced from page no. 3 to 6 of the impugned

order, wherein it was primarily contended that the assessee’s long time

accountant who had been entrusted with maintaining accounts and

handling tax compliance, tragically passed away and due to said reason

the assessee could not file the appeal in time. On perusal of the reasons

explained in page 4 of the impugned order, we are of the considered

opinion that the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide which

really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Therefore, we

deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the ld.CIT(A) for a fresh

consideration in condoning the delay of 101 days and adjudicate the

issues on merits. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in

support of his claim. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

for statistical purposes.

4 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.771/Chny/2026 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.771/Chny/2026 No.771/Chny/2026 No.771/Chny/2026

purposes. 29th April, 2026 at Chennai. Order pronounced on

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated : 29.04.2026 JPV आदेशकी'ितिलिपअ.ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ&/Appellant, 2.'(थ&/ Respondent, 3. आयकरआयु//CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय'ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड$ फाईल/GF.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.05.04 10:39:07 +05'30'