MANIMOZHI,PONDICHERRY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, PUDUCHERRY

ITA 3947/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 October 2026AY 2020-218 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 78 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation that she was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause. The Tribunal found the averments in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay to be uncontroverted. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal by passing a cryptic order without discussing the facts or submissions, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside. While ordinarily the matter would be remitted back to the CIT(A), in view of the assessee's plea of ignorance of assessment proceedings leading to an ex parte assessment order, the Tribunal was of the considered opinion that the matter required remand to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to afford the appellant an opportunity of being heard. The addition of Rs. 55,50,000 was not decided on merits, but the case was remanded for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, did not file a regular return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21. Based on information about time deposits totaling Rs. 55,50,000 in Indian Bank and Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed a return declaring income of Rs. 3,66,595 but failed to comply with notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2). Consequently, the AO passed a best judgment assessment order dated 02.01.2025 under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B, totaling Rs. 55,50,000, treating the time deposits as unexplained investment. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), arguing the deposits were from funds sent by her husband from Oman for medical expenses and family maintenance. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was delayed by 78 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 78 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is liable to be condoned on the grounds of sufficient cause, as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, considering the assessee's alleged lack of digital knowledge and her husband's return from Oman, and the Chartered Accountant's surgery? (Question of fact) 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte and for non-appearance, violating the principles of natural justice, given the short notice period and the assessee's claim of unawareness of hearing notices? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961) 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 55,50,000 as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without properly considering the assessee's submissions that the deposits were made from funds sent by her husband from Oman for medical expenses and family maintenance? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961) Assessee's Contentions: - The delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to the assessee's lack of digital literacy, her husband's return from Oman, and the Chartered Accountant's surgery. (Relied on M. Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V. Laxmi Narain Rao AIR 1973 SC 627 for uncontroverted affidavits). - The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte due to short notice, violating natural justice, and the assessee was unaware of the notices. - The time deposits were made from funds sent by her husband from Oman for medical expenses and family maintenance, and the CIT(A) failed to appreciate these facts. - The matter may be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Revenue's Contentions: - The assessee neither cooperated before the Assessing Officer nor before the Learned CIT(A), and therefore, no indulgence should be granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 139,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI BENCHES,

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Pronounced: 08.10.2026

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], dated 12.02.2026 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 1 MANIMOZHI [A]

2.

The Assessee raised these following grounds of appeal :

“1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC dismissing the appeal is contrary to law, erroneous, and unsustainable on the facts of the case.

2.

The CIT(A) NFAC erred in dismissing the ap

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 139

All 3,629 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →