SHANTHAKUMAR SUBRAMANIAN,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

We find that there is a delay of 9 days in filing the present appeal before us. The Ld.AR placed on record an affidavit from the assessee, explaining the reasons for the delay and prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeal be taken up on merits. Per contra, the Ld.DR opposed the petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has not made out a case for condoning the delay and that the appeal may be dismissed in limine on the grounds of limitation. On going through the reasons for delay, we are satisfied that the assessee had sufficient cause in not presenting the appeal within the period of limitation specified under the Act. We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeal and now proceed to hear the case on merits.

Brief facts of the case emanating from the records are that the assessee is an individual and did not file his return of income for AY 2018-19. As per the information available with the department, the AO found that the assessee has made financial transactions to the tune of Rs.197,99,17,602/- during the assessment year. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 21.04.2022 was issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee has filed his return of income on 18.05.2022, declaring a total income of Rs.9,51,620/-. Subsequently, the AO issued statutory notices to the assessee and by calling for details. However, the assessee chooses to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices. On perusal of the material available on record, the AO made the addition to the tune of Rs.40,37,38,796/- as unexplained cash deposit u/s.69A of the Act, commission of income, income from contract receipts and FOB value of shipping bills (20% of Rsa.196,86,11,985/-) and completed the assessment by passing an ex-parte order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 08.03.2024.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 03.11.2025 with a delay in filing an appeal.

At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided four opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 6.3 of the ld.CIT(A) order to support the appeal of the assessee. However, the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices. Consequently, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine due to the delay in filing an appeal by 575 days without sufficient evidence and non-compliance during the appellate proceedings and hence, the ld.CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order dated 31.03.2026 by confirming the order of the AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

The ld.AR submitted that the assessee could not file the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) within the prescribed time limit due to the ill health of the assessee which was mentally and physically due to the heavy losses incurred in the business of the assessee. Further, the ld.AR argued that the ld.CIT(A), having proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte, ought to have adjudicated the issues on merits based on material available on record. However, the impugned merely confirms the additions without independent examination, rendering the order non-speaking and violative of principles of natural justice. In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of AO. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment proceedings effectively.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the appeal was to be filed before the ld.CIT(A) by the assessee within 30 days of the service, but the assessee has filed an appeal with delay of 575 days. The assessee has been negligent in filing an appeal within the time limit provided and hence prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, including the orders of the authorities below. We note that the

Having considered the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the matter requires reconsideration in the interest of substantial justice. We acknowledge that the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the AO and also did not avail the opportunities provided by the Ld.CIT(A). Nevertheless, the explanation furnished by the assessee with regard to the delay, including the stated ill health and business difficulties, requires consideration in the overall facts and circumstances of the case. We also take note of the submission of the Ld.AR that the assessee is now prepared to cooperate with the Department and furnish the requisite details and supporting evidence. In these circumstances, and with a view to affording the assessee an effective opportunity to substantiate the case on merits, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 575 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The AO is directed to examine the issues involved afresh, consider the explanations and supporting documentary evidence that may be furnished by the assessee, and pass a speaking order in accordance with law after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions made in the assessment, and all issues are left open for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to extend full cooperation during the remand proceedings, comply with the notices issued by the AO, and furnish the requisite details, written submissions and supporting documents within the time allowed, without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The assessee shall not take the opportunity now granted for granted, and the AO shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law in the event of any further non-compliance.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.