SEERANGAN CHETTIAR MANI,DINDIGUL vs. ITO, WARD-1,, DINDIGUL

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’
यायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

ी मनु कुमार िग र, ाियक सद एवं
एवं
एवं
एवं

ी अिमताभ शुा, लेखा सद के सम

BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1869/Chny/2025
िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: 2017-18
Seerangan Chettiar Mani,
15/2/42, PRR Street,
Kilakottai, Chinnalapatti,
Dindigul-624 301. v.
The ITO,
Ward-1,
Dindigul.
[PAN: ADUPM 6817 C]

(अपीलाथ/Appellant)

(यथ/Respondent)

अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by :
Ms.S. Jesintha, Advocate
यथ क ओर से /Respondent by :
Mr.Veeramany.K, IRS
सुनवाईकतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
26.08.2025
घोषणाकतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
26.08.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

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 17.01.2024 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the appeal has been filed belatedly by ‘91’ days and assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the cause for the delay. Having gone through the Seerangan Chettiar Mani
:: 2 ::

contents of the same, we find that cause for delay was reasonable, so we excuse the same and proceed to hear the assessee’s appeal on merits.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the AO was having information under AIMS (Actionable Information Monitoring System) that the assessee had deposited cash of rs.16,30,000/- and Rs.3,95,000/- totaling to Rs.20,25,000/- during demonetization period in his bank account. The AO found total deposits of Rs.20,25,000/- were in SBN currency and added the same u/s 69A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as there was no response to the notices issued for hearing and filing submission.
4. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.
5. Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the assessee may be given more chance to adduce evidence and submission. The ld.DR relied upon the order of the ld.CIT(A) and pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal.
6. Though we some extent concur with the submissions of Ld.DR, however, keeping in mind the natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee may be granted opportunity to file submissions and evidence before the AO. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of the AO for hearing on merits subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) which shall be deposited by Seerangan Chettiar Mani
:: 3 ::

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 AO whose shall proceed for hearing the denovo assessment on merits after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case with all evidence and documents, if any, forthwith without any fail, failing which AO shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment proceedings on merits as per law.
Legal issues are open. The ld. AR of the asssessee also assured us that the assessee will prosecute the case diligently before the authorities.
7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on the 26th day of August, 2025, in Chennai. (अिमताभ शुा)
(AMITABH SHUKLA)
लेखा सदय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (मनु कुमार िग र)
(MANU KUMAR GIRI)
याियक सदय/JUDICIAL MEMBER

चे ई/Chennai,
!दनांक/Dated: 26th August, 2025. TLN, Sr.PS
1. अपीलाथ /Appellant
2. थ /Respondent
3. आयकरआयु/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore.