Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 124 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to a lack of communication with their accountants and unawareness of proceedings. The Assessing Officer had assessed income under Section 144 based on cash deposits during demonetization.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it was not intentional. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with an undertaking from the assessee to comply with requirements.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
250, 142(1), 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
per law.
We have considered the rival submissions. On the issue of condonation of delay, we find that when the assessee received phone call from the jurisdictional 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.
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 Santhose Kr. Ponnusamy Vs ITO under Section 142(1) and subsequent notices calling for various details, documents and evidences to explain the source of deposit. The Assessing Officer, therefore, assessed the income under Section 144 of the Act on a total income of Rs. 48,68,289/-.
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).
Further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal.
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
1. 4 ITA1894/Chny/2025 Santhose Kr. Ponnusamy Vs ITO proceedings only after he received a phone call from the Jurisdictional ITO regarding pending tax arrears and order passed under Section 250 of the Act.
Only after such intimation, the assessee became aware of the existence of such order.
The ld. Sr.DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We have considered the rival submissions, we find it proper to restore the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with the undertaking of the ld.AR of the assessee that they will make necessary compliance before the Assessing Officer and provide all necessary documents to substantiate the transactions on record. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only.
In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2025.