S.G. SRINIVASAN,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, VELLORE

We have considered the rival submissions. On the issue of condonation of delay, we find that the assessee submitted in its affidavit that due to illness of the assessee as well as due to unawareness of the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not file appeal before the Tribunal within stipulated time. We agree with the contention made by the assessee in his affidavit about delayed filing of appeal, therefore considering the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay of 219 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 the department received information from the system that the assessee Shri S.G. Srinivasan, Proprietor M/s Akash Cotton Yarn waste, No. 15, Venkatramana Bagavathar Street, Walajapet has made a case deposits of Rs. 80,48,900/- in State Bank of India, Tirupattur branch ad Rs. 13,86,000/- in State Bank of India, SME Branch, Walajapet totaling to Rs. 94,34,900/- during demonetization period from 09/11/2016 to 31/12/2016. However, the assessee did not file any return of income for the assessment year under consideration. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was, therefore, issued by the Assessing Officer to file a return disclosing true and correct income for the A.Y. 2017-18. Further, since no return was filed by the assessee and not made any compliance to the notices issued by the Assessing Office from time to time,

4 ITA1926/Chny/2025 S.G. Srinivasan Vs ITO a summon was issued under Section 131 of the Act to the assessee to give explanation and produce the necessary evidence to explain the source of cash deposits. The assessee appeared and statement on oath was recorded from the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee filed return of income in response to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act on 11/09/2019 disclosing total taxable income of Rs. 3,16,670/- after due date of filing the return of income, therefore, the return was treated as invalid return as per the provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer, thereafter passed assessment order on the basis of best judgment assessment and assessed the income at Rs. 2,49,744/- being 8% of the total turnover shown by the assessee. The Assessing Officer further added a sum of Rs. 13,96,300/- under Section 68 of the Act and taxed under Section 115BBE @ 60% for failure to explain the source of this cash deposit.

Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The assessee did not appear before the ld. CIT(A) to submit any submission or evidence before him during the course of appellate proceedings before him.

Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), this appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal. During the appellate proceedings before us, the assessee prayed that one more opportunity may kindly be given to the assessee so that it explained its case before the ld. CIT(A).

On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the fact that the assessee did not appear before the ld. CIT(A) to substantiate its claim, therefore, considering the prayer of the assessee, we restore the issue back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with the undertaking from the assessee that he will make all necessary compliance before the ld. CIT(A) and provide all necessary documents to substantiate his claim. Before deciding the issue, the assessee shall be given reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing. 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.