VIGNESH RAJAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD.10(6), CHENNAI

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1 For that the Assessment Order of the Ld. FAO and the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant Company and is opposed to the principles of natural justice. 2 For that the CIT(A), NFAC failed to note that the Appellant during the Previous year sold the immovable property along with other co-owners, which was erroneously treated as equal share by the Assessing Authority, was explained with the support of the document was not considered while disposing the Appeal of the Appellant. 3. For that the CIT(A), NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating the fact that the Encumbrance Certificate being part of the Assessment records as well Assessment Order, clearly exhibits the share of the Appellant, but wrongly assessed at a larger part of the property is purely non-application of mind thereon. 4. For that the CIT(A), NFAC failed to look into the facts that was brought in the Assessment records, wherein the Form No. 26AS as well the TDS remitted on behalf of the Appellant by the Purchaser of the Property exhibits the consideration and thus this cannot be altered or amended with any proper evidences or documents brought on record, renders the dismissal without verification of basic records available with the CIT(A) NFAC.

While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of Rs.95,00,000/- on short term capital gain on the sale of immovable property by substituting the actual consideration by market value adopted for stamp duty purpose. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.20 lakhs for the failure of the appellant to explain the source of time deposits along with the supporting documents.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A) who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), appellant filed appeal before us in the present appeal. At the outset, we find that there is delay of 263 days in present appeal filed before us.

The appellant filed an Affidavit seeking condonation of delay on ground that he had come to know of the order passed u/s.250 only in the second week of December 2025 on receipt of demand notice from CPC, Bangalore as well as attachment of the bank account by the Department. Thereafter, immediately took steps to file appeal in Hon’ble ITAT. Thus, it is submitted that delay had occurred on account of the factors which are beyond his control. The averments made in the Affidavit remain uncontroverted by learned Departmental Representative. Thus, he prayed for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 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. Therefore, in our considered opinion since the appellant prevented from filing of appeal for the reasons which are beyond his control, this would constitute a reasonable cause for delay. Accordingly, delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

On the other hand, the ld.Sr.Departmental Representative opposed the above submissions and submits that the order passed by ld.CIT(A) is justified as the appellant had not caused appearance before the ld.CIT(A).

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the appellant for non-prosecution without entering into the merits of the addition. The ld.CIT(A) without dealing with the contentions of the appellant merely dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. As contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act the ld.CIT(A) is required to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon before passing the order. It is the settled position of law that the ld.CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal ex-parte, he is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) as under : Quote, “8.From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.3871/CHNY/2025 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. STAY APPLICATION No.132/CHNY/2025 12. Since the appeal is disposed, the Stay Application becomes infructuous, accordingly Stay Application is dismissed as not-maintainable. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16th April, 2026.