R VINOTHKUMAR ,CUDDALORE vs. ITO, CUDDALORE, CUDDALORE

At the threshold, we observe that there is a delay of 51 days in the filing of the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has furnished an affidavit explaining that the CIT(A) order was given to Chartered Accountant who was pre-occupied and out of station and handed over the papers on 13.11.2025 and the assessee has filed the same before the Tribunal on 13.11.2025, with a delay of 44 days, which is not deliberate and either wilful nor wanton and prayed for condoning the delay. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed her return of income for A.Y.2015-16. Based on the information received from the department, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.28,07,100/- in Indian Bank and Rs.23,55,200/- in Lakshmi Vilas Bank. The assessee neither filed had not filed the return of income, hence, the case was re-opened for assessment by issuing a notice u/s.148 of the Act. Since the assessee did not respond to any of the notices or filed return of income pursuant to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the AO completed the assessment exparte u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.01.2023, after making the addition of total cash deposits of Rs.51,62,300/- as unexplained income u/s. 69A of the Act.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 20.06.2023. 5. At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided four opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 5.2 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 and hence, the ld.

The ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee could have derived no benefit by not responding to the notices issued on the assessee and the assessee had reasonable cause for not responding to the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) and hence the assessee could not submit the written submission and valid evidence before the ld.CIT(A). In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed to set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of Assessing Officer. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment proceedings effectively.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that both the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to appear before them. However, the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices 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 order exparte by considering the submissions made by the assessee along with the information available with the department and on appeal the same has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to non- participation of the assessee. Since the assessee has failed to participate before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld.CIT(A), we levy the cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of :-4-: ITA Nos. 3361/Chny/2025

Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we are deeming it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and hence we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the AO to adjudicate the matter afresh on merits in accordance to 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.