RAJESH M,KARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KARUR, KARUR

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file his return of income for AY 2017-18. Based on information available on record, the AO observed that during the relevant financial year, the assessee had made aggregate cash deposits of Rs.52,92,500/- and cash withdrawals of Rs.57,47,500/- as well as time deposits totalling Rs.56,51,629/- and Rs.37,06,541/- into his bank account maintained with Lakshmi Vilas Bank and IDBI Bank respectively during the period under consideration. In view of the above transactions, the assessment was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act and subsequent statutory notices were issued to the assessee and by calling for details. Since the assessee remained unrepresented and failed to respond to any of the notices, the AO proceeded to finalize the proceedings on the basis of material available on record and bank statement obtained from IDBI Bank u/s.133(6) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO passed an ex-parte re-assessment order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 17.03.2025, determining total income at Rs.1,55,19,928/-, by making additions of Rs.1,28,35,085/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act,

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 09.08.2025 with a delay in filing an appeal.

At the outset, we observed that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine, due to delay in filing an appeal by 113 days. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

The ld.AR submitted that the assessee was unaware of the hearing notices sent by the AO during re-assessment proceedings as the registered email ID was not updated in PAN of the assessee by the consultant, consequently, all the electronic communications sent by the AO during relevant period went unnoticed by the consultant’s office. The assessee became aware of the reassessment order passed by the AO only after receipt of physical notice served at his registered address. Further, the ld.AR argued that the ld.CIT(A) ought to have dismissed the appeal on mere technical ground (delay in filing appeal) without appreciating the merits that are prima-facie evident from the assessee’s bank account. 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 113 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 parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed an exparte order by considering the information available with the department and on appeal the same has been dismissed in limine by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority.

Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it fit to give one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) as the assessee had filed the condonation of delay in his form 35 itself and hence we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file to ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter denovo on merits in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

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