SANTHAPURAM GOVINDARAJ SATHYAKALA,KRISHNAGIRI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KRIHSNAGIRI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2042/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 September 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI HON'BLE S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering it a matter of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for hearing on merits.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 24,75,000/- for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 1104 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned to allow the appeal to be heard on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI HON’BLE S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 16.09.2025Pronounced: 18.09.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member):

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 25.06.2025 for Assessment Year 2012-13.

Rs. 24,75,000/- being unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A of the Act as the assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposits. Aggrieved by the said addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Id.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine as the appeal was filed delayed by 1104 days.

3.

Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

Before us, the Id. Counsel for assessee submitted that the assessee has given reasons for the delay in Form 35 but the same was not appreciated by the Id.CIT(A). Therefore, he pleaded that after condoning the delay, the assessee may be given chance to prosecute the case before the Id. CIT(A). The Id. DR relied upon the order of the Id.CIT(A) and pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal.

5.

Though we some extent concur with the submissions of Ld.AR and find that the reasons given by the assessee can't be ruled out.

Hence, we condone the delay and also keeping in mind the natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee may be granted opportunity to prosecute the case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the Santhapuram Govindaraj Sathyakala :- 3 -: appeal file of the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing on merits subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) which shall be deposited by the assessee within '30' days from the date of receipt of this order to 'Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority' at Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same will be furnished by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) whose shall proceed for hearing the appeal on merits after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate his case with all evidence and documents, if any, forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld.CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the appeal proceedings on merits as per law. The Id. AR of the asssessee also assured us that the assessee will prosecute the case diligently before the Ld. CIT(A).

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on 18th day of September, 2025 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →