YOOSUF RAHUMAN MOHAMED IBRAHIM,SIVAGANGA vs. ITO, WARD-1,, PUDUKOTTAI

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
माननीय श्री जॉजज जॉजज के, उपाध्यक्ष एवं माननीय श्री इंटूरी रामा राव, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष
BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2946 & 2947/Chny/2025
Assessment Years: 2018-19

Yoosuf Rahuman Mohamed Ibrahim,
No.172 Thondi Road, Aranmanai Vasal,
Sivaganga,
Tamil Nadu-630 561. [PAN: AHOPY0981D]

Income Tax Officer,
Ward-1
Pudukkottai.

(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)

(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)
अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by :
Mr.R.Subramanian, C.A (Virtually)
प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by :
Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing
:
16.12.2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
18.12.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M : These two appeals filed by the assessee – Yoosuf Rahuman Mohamed Ibrahim against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) / NFAC, [‘CIT(A)’ in short], Delhi dated 17.09.2025 for AY-2018-19. 2.0 The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn as the appeal is duplicate of appeal bearing ITA No.2947/Chny/2025. ITA No.2946 & 2947/Chny/2025

Page - 2 - of 4
3.0
Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual.
No regular return of income under the provisions of the 139 of the Act 1961
was filed for the assessment year 2017-18. However, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits in the bank account aggregating to Rs.1,03,75,564, the assessing officer formed an opinion that income escaped assessment from tax. The assessing officer after complying with procedure laid down u/s 148A of the Act, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 06.04.2022. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s 148 nor complied with the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the income tax act 1961. In the circumstances, the AO completed best judgement assessment vide order dated 21.11.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs.1,22,58,920/-. While doing so, the AO treated the cash deposits in the bank account of Rs.93,04,480/- and the credits into the bank account of Rs.25,35,340 as unexplained money of the appellant and made the addition to the returned income.
4.0 Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
5.0 The learned A.R submit that the CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal on the grounds of delay, in as much as, there was no delay in filing of appeal before him. He submits that the CIT(A) ought not to have reckoned

ITA No.2946 & 2947/Chny/2025

Page - 3 - of 4

the date of service of assessment order as 21.12.2023, as the appellant was served notice of demand only on 05.06.20224. 6.0 The learned Sr.DR opposed the above submissions and submits that the CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal on the grounds of delay as no explanation was furnished by the appellant for the delay in presenting the appeal before the CIT(A).
7.0 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on records. The only issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay or not. The contention of the appellant that there was no delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) requires to be accepted in the absence of any evidence to the contrary to the specific plea that the assessment order along with notice of demand was served only on 05.06.2024 and the appeal was filed on 19.06.2024. However, the CIT(A) reckoned date of limitation for filing appeal from the date of the CIT(A) order. It is settled position of law that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal is before the CIT(A), the limitation period to be reckoned from the date of knowledge of the order. Therefore, in our considered opinion, there was no delay in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had not to have dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay. In the circumstances, the order passed by the CIT(A) is hereby set aside, we remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the issues in appeal on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard

ITA No.2946 & 2947/Chny/2025

Page - 4 - of 4

to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
8.0 In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 18th , December-2025 at Chennai. (जॉजज जॉजज के)
(GEORGE GEORGE K)
उपाध्यक्ष / vice president (इंटूरी रामा राव)
(INTURI RAMA RAO)
लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member
चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 18th , December-2025. KB/-
आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to:
1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant
2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent
3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem.