DHARMARAJ RAJAM,TRICHY vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TRICHY

Dharmaraj Rajam, Income Tax Officer, No.61/41, Vagaikulam Road, Ward-2(1), Mannapparai, Trichy, Trichy. Tamil Nadu-621 306. [PAN: CBJPR1237C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.G.Akash, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 08.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2023-24 / 1059794068(1) dated 17.01.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.

2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 414 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse was terminally ill as a result of which he omitted to comply with timelines for filing of the appeal. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay save that cost be imposed upon the assessee for repeated non-compliance to lower authorities and wasting the precious time of the Court. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.AO has passed ex-parte orders in case of the assessee. It was submitted that the only issue under consideration is an addition of Rs.1,48,82,699/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank account u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE. The impugned addition was made by the Ld.AO u/s 144 for want of any submission and details by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.First Appellate Authority has also confirmed the addition by passing an order drawing inaccurate conclusions. It has been stated that the Ld.CIT(A) Page - 2 - of 5 has drawn his conclusions without considering the written submissions filed by the appellant. It has been contended that the Ld.CIT(A) has merely harped upon the issue of assessee not adequately complying with the statutory notices issued by the Ld.AO. It was accordingly pleaded that in the interest of justice the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld.AO for readjudication. The Ld. Counsel assured that full compliance would now be made to the statutory notices. The Ld. DR would like to make us believe on the correctness of the order of lower authorities. It was however simultaneously pleaded that costs be imposed upon the appellant for wasting the time of the Bench. 4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. As per facts recorded by the Ld. AO in his order, he had given opportunities to the assessee for filing the required details which were not availed by the assessee leading to his making the impugned addition u/s 144. We have however noted that the order passed by the Ld. AO is not a speaking order and clear facts have not been brought on records before making the impugned addition. There are also indications of no enquiries conducted by the Ld.AO. The Ld.First Appellate Authority has also dismissed the appeal by solely relying upon the non- compliances made before the Ld.AO. No decision has been given qua the merits of the addition.