ABDUL MAJEED SALIM,CHENNAI vs. ITO,, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the cause reasonable. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence and submissions. This restoration is conditional on the assessee depositing Rs. 15,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made additions for unsecured loans and cash deposits totaling over Rs. 16 crores and Rs. 6.5 crores, respectively, treating them as unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal on account of non-prosecution, leading the assessee to file an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 761 days.
What were the issues?
Condonation of significant delay in filing the appeal; restoration of appeal to CIT(A) for hearing on merits after dismissal for non-prosecution, concerning additions under Section 68.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
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 17.03.2023 for Assessment Year 2018-19.
At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the appeal has been filed belatedly by ‘761’ days and assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the cause for the delay. Having gone through the 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.
The brief facts of the case are that the AO made an addition of Rs.16,01,65,449/- being Unsecured loans treated as unexplained credit u/s 68 and cash deposits of Rs.6,56,98,450/- treated as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as unadmitted on account of non-prosecution.
Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.
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.
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.
1. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the appeal file to the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing on merits subject to cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 its 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. Legal issues are open. The ld. AR of the asssessee also assured us that the assessee will prosecute the case diligently before the ld.CIT(A).
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.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
