OSURAN RAJAMANICKAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-2, , KANCHEEPURAM

Assessment Years: 2017-18 Osuran Rajamanickam, Income Tax Officer, No.1/A, Magalai Street, Ward-2, Mudichur Road , Old Perungalathur, Kanchipuram. Chennai-600 063. [PAN: BZBPR0488N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Ms.Joshita Jothi, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Gautham S.Mukundan, IRS सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 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 / 2022-23 / 1049597942(1) dated 09.02.2023 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 697 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is a small time business man and an uneducated person. It has been stated that he was unaware of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) as no physical copy was provided and the email ID could not be accessed. No details were provided by the then attending chartered accountant . It has been further contended that the assessee and his wife has been suffering from various health issues requiring frequent hospitalization. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither wilful 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 except that cost be imposed upon the assessee. 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 both the lower authorities the Ld.AO as well as Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex- parte orders in case of the assessee who is a small time business man. It was submitted that the only issue under consideration is an addition of Rs.20,60,000, on account of unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period and of Rs. 39,09,690/- on account of unexplained capital accretion. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Page - 2 - of 5 Ld.First Appellate Authority has also confirmed the addition by passing an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. 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. 4.0 Per contra, 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. 5.0 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 satisfactorily filed by the assessee leading to his making the impugned addition. 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. Before the Ld.First Appellate Authority also the conduct of the assessee was far from satisfactory as far as compliance to statutory notices are concerned leading to dismissal of the appeal for want of adequate persecution by the assessee.