GOVINDASAMY VISHNU SANKAR ANAND,TIRUPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),, TIRUPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4071/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 November 2026AY 2018-195 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed ex parte and the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a 212-day delay. The Tribunal also observed the assessee's failure to effectively participate in proceedings before both the AO and CIT(A). However, considering the interest of substantial justice and to provide an effective opportunity of being heard, the Tribunal decided to adjudicate the matter on merits rather than procedural non-compliance. The assessee had paid a cost of Rs. 20,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority as directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate to condone the delay of 212 days, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to examine the issues afresh, consider evidence from the assessee, and pass a speaking order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Govindasamy Vishnu Sankar Anand, is an individual who filed an income tax return for Assessment Year 2018-19 declaring an income of Rs. 16,67,340/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information indicating significant Bitcoin trading (Rs. 12,88,857/-) not disclosed in the return. The AO also noted discrepancies in salary receipts and identified financial transactions including time deposits (Rs. 25,00,000/-), credit card payments (Rs. 40,04,508/-), and short-term capital gains from equity shares (Rs. 22,93,530/-). The assessee remained silent and did not respond to notices. Consequently, the AO made additions totaling Rs. 1,06,27,583/- and passed an ex-parte assessment order dated 11.03.2024. The assessee appealed to the CIT(Appeals) on 08.11.2024, with a delay of 212 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 212 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) should be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation regarding difficulties in obtaining bank and credit card statements from his banker. Assessee's Contention: The learned Authorized Representative (AR) argued that the delay was due to genuine attempts to obtain necessary documents from the banker, which were not provided within the stipulated time. The assessee had made oral requests and subsequent email communications to the banker. The AR prayed for setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitting the issues to the AO. Revenue's Contention: The learned Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the appeal was filed with a significant delay of 212 days, indicating negligence on the part of the assessee, and therefore, the order of the CIT(A) should be confirmed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 69,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA

For Respondent: Mr. Beesam Narasing Rao, JCIT
Hearing: 23.09.2026Pronounced: 04.11.2026

आदेश /O R D E R

PER S.R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 27.05.2026, arising from the assessment order dated 11.03.2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 passed by the Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the AO”], u/s. 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s 144B of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

Brief facts of the case emanating from the records are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income for AY 2018-19, declaring

:-2-: ITA. No.4071/Chny/2026

income of Rs.16,67,340/-. As per the information available with the department, the AO found that the assessee has huge value of Bitcoin Trading amounting to Rs.12,88,857/- and failed to disclose in the return of income. Further, the AO noticed that the salary receipts of the assessee was Rs.23,08,462/- instead of Rs.17,67,000/- shown in the return of income and the assessee has made financial transactions on account of purchased time deposits with Axis Bank amounting to Rs.25,00,000/-, payment of credit card bills amounting to Rs.40,04,508/- and short term capital gains of Rs.22,93,530/- from sale of equity shares during the assessment year. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act and statutory notices were issued to the assessee and by calling for details. However, the assessee chooses to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices. Hence, the AO made the additions to the tune of Rs.1,06,27,583/- as salary income, short term capital gains, unexplained investment u/s.69 and u/s.69C of the Act and income from other sources and concluded the assessment by passing an ex-parte order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 11.03.2024.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 08.11.2024 with a delay in filing an appeal.

4.

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 212 days. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

5.

The ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) did not appreciate that the assessee has genuinely attempted to obtain bank statement credit card statement from his banker, however, the documents were not furnished to the assessee by his banker within the time stipulated to file the appeal. Initially the assessee had orally requested his banker to provide bank statements pertaining to the financial years. However, the same was furnished.

:-3-: ITA. No.4071/Chny/2026

Subsequently, the assessee has written mails in the month of September, October and November 2024 to his banker seeking for bank statements. Subsequently, the assessee preferred the Appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the delay of 212 days in filing the Appeal. 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.

6.

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 212 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).

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, including the orders of the authorities below. We note that the assessment was completed by the AO ex parte, on the basis of the information available on record. The assessee’s appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), was dismissed on account of a delay of 212 days in filing the appeal, which was not condoned, primarily due to the assessee’s non-compliance during the appellate proceedings. We further note that the assessee had failed to effectively participate in the proceedings before both the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). Having regard to the repeated non-compliance, this Tribunal directed the assessee to remit a cost of Rs.20,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras, and furnish proof of such remittance. In compliance with the aforesaid direction, the assessee remitted the prescribed amount and furnished the proof of payment before this Tribunal on 23.09.2026, which has been taken on record. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that, in the interest of substantial justice and to afford the

:-4-: ITA. No.4071/Chny/2026

assessee an effective opportunity of being heard, the matter deserves to be adjudicated on merits rather than being concluded on account of procedural non-compliance. We note that the assessee had furnished the reasons for the delay in the condonation petition forming part of Form No. 35 itself. Considering the explanation so furnished, the overall circumstances of the case and the assessee’s compliance with the direction of this Tribunal regarding payment of costs, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 212 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

9.

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 adjudication. The AO is directed to examine the issues involved afresh, consider the relevant material and 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. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the proceedings, comply with the notices issued by the AO, and furnish the necessary explanations, written submissions and supporting documentary evidence, as may be advised, without seeking unnecessary adjournments. It is made clear that the assessee shall not take the opportunity so granted for granted, and the AO shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law in the event of further non-compliance.

10.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 04th November, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एबी ट� वक� ) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (ABY T VARKEY) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) �या�यक सद�य/Judicial Member लेखासद�य/Accountant Member चे�नई/Chennai,.दनांक/Dated, the 04th November, 2026. Devadas EJTADA Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA NARESH DURGA Date: 2026.11.13 NARESH 11:47:54 +05'30'

:-5-: ITA. No.4071/Chny/2026

आदेश क* (�त0ल1प अ2े1षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ'/Appellant 2. ()यथ'/Respondent 3.आयकर आयु3त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. 1वभागीय (�त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड% फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →