SANTHAPURAM GOVINDARAJ SATHYAKALA,KRISHNAGIRI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KRIHSNAGIRI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण‘सी’ ायपीठ, चेई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
माननीयीमनुकुमार िग र, ाियकसद एवं
माननीय एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद के सम(
BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI HON’BLE S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2042/Chny/2025
िनधा7रण वष7 /Assessment Year: 2011-12
Santhapuram
Govindaraj
Sathyakala,
2/57, Santhapuram Village,
Kaveripattinam Post,
Krishnagiri Tk.,
Krishnagiri – 635 112. PAN: CUQPS 6303E
The Income Tax Officer,
Ward-1,
Krishnagiri.
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)
( यथ/Respondent)
अपीलाथC की ओर से/ Appellant by :
Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate
EFथC की ओर से /Respondent by :
Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing
:
16.09.2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
18.09.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member): 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. Santhapuram Govindaraj Sathyakala
:- 2 -:
The brief facts of the case are that the AO made an addition of 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. (एस. आर. रघुनाथा)
(S.R. Raghunatha)
लेखा
लेखा
लेखा
लेखा सदय
सदय
सदय
सदय /Accountant Member
(मनु कुमार िग र)
(Manu Kumar Giri)
ाियक सद / Judicial Member
चेनई/Chennai, दनांक/Dated: 18th September, 2025. EDN/-
Santhapuram Govindaraj Sathyakala
:- 4 -:
आदेश क ितिल प अ े षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ/Appellant
2. थ/Respondent
3. आयकर आयु/CIT, Chennai /Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem
4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF