RAJENDIRAN SURESH,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI

आदेश/ O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against four orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi all dated 30.07.2026, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2022-23.

- 2 - ITA Nos. 4344, 4353 to 4355 /CHNY/2026 Rajendiran Suresh 2. The assessee has filed appeals against the First Appellate Authority (FAA) orders in respect of quantum addition and penalty orders. First, let us deal with appellate order in respect of quantum addition in ITA No.4344/CHNY/2026.

ITA No.4344/CHNY/2026 3. At the very outset, we notice that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) dismissed the assessee's appeal without condoning the delay. The FAA observed that there was a delay of 690 days in filing the appeal. The reason stated by the assessee in his condonation petition for the delay was that the assessee engaged a consultant to look into the assessment proceedings and represent him before the Income-tax Department. However, he failed to comply to the assessment proceedings resulting in passing assessment order with unusually high demand and assessee was unaware of the same. The FAA held that the explanation was not reasonable and did not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the FAA declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal.

- 3 - ITA Nos. 4344, 4353 to 4355 /CHNY/2026 Rajendiran Suresh 4. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the FAA declined to condone the delay of 690 days in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal in limine. It was submitted that, soon after the initiation of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had engaged a consultant to handle the matter and represent him before the Department. The assessee was continuously following up with the consultant regarding the proceedings but believed that the consultant was effectively representing his case. However, owing to the consultant’s negligence and failure to properly represent the assessee before the AO, an unusually high demand of Rs.75,95,526/- was raised. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee became aware of the assessment order and the consequential demand only subsequently, whereupon he approached a new consultant, who promptly filed the appeal before the FAA. In support of the explanation, the Ld. AR furnished copies of the message conversations between the assessee and the erstwhile consultant to demonstrate that the assessee had been regularly following up on the proceedings. Accordingly, the Ld. AR contended that the delay was attributable to the negligence of the consultant and not to any wilful inaction on the part of the assessee, and pleaded for condonation of the delay.

- 4 - ITA Nos. 4344, 4353 to 4355 /CHNY/2026 Rajendiran Suresh 5. On merits, the Ld. AR submitted that the AO had treated the entire cash deposits of Rs.17,15,50,700/- as business receipts and estimated the profit margin at 10%, resulting in the determination of business income at Rs.1,71,55,070/-. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was engaged in the business of Domestic Money Transfer and had disclosed a turnover of Rs.8,97,461/-. It was further submitted that, although the AO had observed that the credit and debit entries in the bank account were almost identical, indicating that the cash deposits were being transferred out in the course of business, the AO had nevertheless estimated the income at 10% of the entire cash deposits without properly appreciating the nature of the assessee’s business. The Ld. AR, therefore, contended that the assessee had a prima facie case on merits and pleaded for condonation of the delay before the FAA and restoration of the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, as the erstwhile consultant had failed to effectively represent the assessee’s case during the assessment proceedings.

- 5 - ITA Nos. 4344, 4353 to 4355 /CHNY/2026 Rajendiran Suresh 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The FAA dismissed the appeal in limine by declining to condone the delay of 690 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had engaged a consultant to represent his case before the Department and was under the bona fide belief that the proceedings were being properly attended to. However, owing to the consultant’s negligence, the assessee remained unaware of the assessment order until he came to know of the substantial demand raised by the AO. The Ld. AR also furnished copies of the message conversations between the assessee and the erstwhile consultant to substantiate that the assessee had been regularly following up on the proceedings. On merits, we notice that the AO treated the entire cash deposits of Rs.17,15,50,700/- as business receipts and estimated the profit at 10%, resulting in the determination of business income at Rs.1,71,55,070/-. The assessee claims to be engaged in the business of Domestic Money Transfer and has disclosed a turnover of Rs.8,97,461/-. The contention that the credit and debit entries in the bank account are almost identical raises a prima facie issue warranting examination of the nature of the transactions and the basis for estimating the income at 10% of the entire cash deposits.

- 6 - ITA Nos. 4344, 4353 to 4355 /CHNY/2026 Rajendiran Suresh Considering the reasons advanced for the delay, the supporting material placed on record and the prima facie case made out on merits, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 690 days in filing the appeal before the FAA and restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, subject to payment of a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the Cancer Institute (W.I.A), Adyar, Chennai - 600020. The assessee shall pay the aforesaid cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and furnish proof of payment to the AO. The assessee shall cooperate with the AO, furnish all requisite details and supporting evidence, and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. It is ordered accordingly.

ITA Nos.4353 to 4355/CHNY/2026 8. The assessee has filed these appeals against the appellate orders confirming the penalties levied by the AO u/ss. 271B, 270A and 271A of the Act. There is a delay of 518 days, 509 days and 511 days, respectively, in filing these appeals before the FAA. The Ld. AR advanced the same reasons for the delay as those considered in the quantum appeal in ITA No. 4344/CHNY/2026. Following the same reasoning, we condone the delay in filing these appeals before the

- 7 - ITA Nos. 4344, 4353 to 4355 /CHNY/2026 Rajendiran Suresh FAA. Since, we have already set aside the quantum appeal in ITA No.4344/CHNY/2026 to the files of the AO for denovo adjudication, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned penalty orders also to the files of the AO to decide along with the corresponding quantum appeal in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th October,2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (गगन गोयल) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (GAGAN GOYAL) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 16th October, 2026 RSR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Chennai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.10.22 12:09:20 +05'30'