MR. SANTHOSH KUMAR PONNUSAMY,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-3(1), COIMBATORE

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ ायपीठ चेई म।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Santhosh Kumar Ponnusamy,
Sree Vari Roadways, 64/1-C1,
L&T Bye Pass Road, Opp Sakthi
Engineering College, Kulathur,
Venkitapuram Post,
Coimbatore-641062. PAN No. FYRPS 8460 N

Vs.
I.T.O.,
Non-corporate Ward 3(1),
Race Course Road,
Coimbatore-641018. Appellant/ Assessee
Respondent/ Revenue

Assessee represented by Shri K.S. Mounish, CA
Department represented by Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT.
Date of hearing
16/09/2025
Date of pronouncement
26/09/2025

PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless
Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 18/12/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18
as per ground of appeal on record.
2. At the outset of hearing, we found from perusal of record that there is delay of 124 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal for which, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit mentioning the fact that on 26/06/2025, the assessee received a phone call from the juri ictional Income Tax Officer regarding pending tax arrears and order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). After

2
ITA1894/Chny/2025
Santhose Kr. Ponnusamy Vs ITO receiving such information/intimation, the assessee aware of filing of the appeal before the Tribunal and after collecting the documents, the assessee filed this appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee stated that the delay is not intentional and deliberate, the same was due to situation beyond his control. He has good case on merit and is likely to succeed, if one more opportunity is provided to the assessee. The assessee prayed to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.
3. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue on the application of condonation of delay, submitted that the Bench may take appropriate view as per law.
4. We have considered the rival submissions. On the issue of condonation of delay, we find that when the assessee received phone call from the juri ictional ITO on 26/06/2025 regarding payment of arrears of tax and thereafter just within a week, he filed the present appeal before the Tribunal, which shows that the assessee has no deliberate intention in filing the appeal before the Tribunal so late. Thus, we condone the delay of 124 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and admit the same for hearing.
5. On merit of the case, the brief facts of the case are that an information was received by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had made a cash deposit of Rs. 28,18,200/- during demonetization period in his bank account. Further the information also revealed that there was a total credit of Rs. 2,84,46,810/- during the assessment year under consideration in the current accounts maintained by the assessee in the bank. The Assessing Officer issued notice

3
ITA1894/Chny/2025
Officer, therefore, assessed the income under Section 144 of the Act on a total income of Rs. 48,68,289/-.
6. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee did not comply to any notice issued by the ld.
CIT(A) nor any evidence/submissions was ever made before the ld. CIT(A).
7. Further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal.
8. During the appellate proceedings before us, it was submitted by the ld. AR before the Bench that “after the initial filing of appeal with the CIT(A), NFAC, there was a frequent change in my accountants. The communication details were available with the previous accountant, with whom the asessee does not have any communication. As a result, the assessee was unable to obtain timely updates regarding the proceedings, which contributed to the lack of awareness about the proceedings. Correspondingly, the appeal proceedings were going and show cause notice for hearing was issued on various dates like 30/08/2024,
19/09/2024, 17/10/2024, 11/11/2024 and 11/12/2024 by the CIT(A), NFAC. The hearing notices were issued after four years. So the assessee was unaware of the hearing notices. The CIT(A) passed an order under Section 250 of the Act and the assessee was also unaware that an order under Section 250 of the Act has been passed on 18/12/2024. The assessee got to know about all these

4
ITA1894/Chny/2025
Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2025. (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY)

JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Chennai, Dated: 26/09/2025
*Ranjan
Copy to:
1. Assessee
2. Revenue
3. CIT
4. DR
5. Guard File

By order

Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Chennai