PANDURANGAN CHETTIAR BALAJI,CUDDALORE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 4 CUDDALORE, CUDDALORE

The Assessee raised these following grounds of appeal : “1) The order passed u/s 144 by the AO based on notices issued to incorrect email ids is required to be set aside and remanded to AO to pass a proper order after considering the nature of transaction and the evidences as held in the case of S 1286 R Pudupalayam PACCS, Namakkal vs ITO Ward I by 'A' Bench ITAT Chennai.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual. The appellant had not filed any regular Return of Income under the provisions of section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. Based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits of Rs.1,09,70,061/- and made cash withdrawal of Rs.49,28,440/- during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration 2018-19, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax, accordingly, a notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was issued on 29.09.2022 calling upon the appellant to file the Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2018-19. In response to notice u/s.142(1), the appellant did not respond to the notices. Therefore, the e-Assessment Unit of the Department(hereinafter called ‘AO’) had proceeded with framing the best judgment assessment vide order dated 20.03.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs.1,58,98,501/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of cash deposits of Rs.1,09,70,061/- as well as cash withdrawals of Rs.49,28,440/- in the account maintained with Bank as unexplained investment for the failure of the appellant to explain the source of cash deposits.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A), with a delay of 349 days. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) had refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay by holding that the appellant could not demonstrate any sufficient cause for the delay after referring to numerous judicial precedents.

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

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. It is an admitted position that the assessee could not represent the matter before the Learned CIT(A). The appellant filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay. However, ld.CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay by stating that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay. The appellant filed petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the notices/assessment order dated 20.03.2023 was not yet received by the appellant. It is further submitted that the assessee did not receive any communication, whatsoever through post, it is only after receiving recovery proceeding of Demand and Penalty, assessee had come to know of the assessment proceedings, therefore not aware of the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) and consequently could not furnish any response or submissions during the appellate proceedings, as a result, appellant was not able to file the appeal within the stipulated time. Thus, he prayed for the condonation of 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. We had gone through the averments made in the affidavit filed before us. On perusal of the contents of the Affidavit, it would be clear that the appellant was not aware of the assessment order dated 20.03.2023 issued by the Department.

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.

Therefore, we are convinced that the appellant was prevented by sufficient reasonable cause from representing the matter before the Learned CIT(A). In ordinary course, we could have remitted the matter back to the file of Learned CIT(A). However, in view of the fact that the appellant was pleading the ignorance of the assessment proceedings resulting in ex parte assessment order, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires to be remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st September, 2026.