Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual deriving income from rent and professional fees, filed an income return for AY 2017-18. The case was selected for scrutiny due to abnormal cash deposits during the demonetisation period. The AO added Rs. 35,03,500/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(A), remitting the matter back for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunities to the assessee, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी मनु कुमार िग�र, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद� के सम� BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 479/CHNY/2025 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aravindarajah Rajagopal, The Income Tax Officer, T2, Sign Residency, Ward-1(2), 15/98, EVR Road, Vs. Trichy. Puthur, Trichy – 620 017. [PAN: AGDPR-1778-H] (��यथ�/Respondent) (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. S.Sridhar, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18, dated 14.07.2021.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, deriving income from Rent from let out properties and Professional Income from Thiagarajar School of Management, Madurai for guest lectures. The assessee filed the return of income
:-2-: ITA. No:479 /Chny/2025 for the A.Y. 2017-18 ON 05.08.2017 admitting total income of Rs.2,99,320/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS for the reason “Abnormal increase in cash deposits during demonetisation period”. The AO issued statutory notices calling for details in support of cash deposits made of Rs.35,03,500/-. The assessee submitted certain details for cash deposit but the AO was not convinced and hence passed an order u/s.143 (3) of the Act on 27.12.2019 by making an addition of Rs.35,03,500/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC.
The ld.CIT(A), NFAC upheld the order of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee without offering any opportunities to the assessee and passed an order dated 14.07.2021.
Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, the assessee preferred an appeal before us with a delay of 1237 days.
At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 1237 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons. Firstly the initial period of delay is covered by the pandemic Covid period upto 29.05.2022 by the decision of the honorable supreme court and further period of delay is caused due to inadvertent error committed by the erstwhile CA who had failed to inform the assessee who was residing abroad during the Covid
:-3-: ITA. No:479 /Chny/2025 period. Later on other CA was engaged for the professional work and on notice of the order in December 2024, immediate steps taken to file the appeal. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication.
Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee is negligent in responding to the notices of the department and hence prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).
We have heard rival contentions and noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an exparte order by considering the information available and based on the AO’s order without the participation of the assessee in the first appellate proceedings. We note the assessee was not provided with sufficient opportunities before the ld.CIT(A). Since the assessee has failed to participate in the appellate proceedings, we levy the cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras and produce proof of payment of cost to the Registry within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
:-4-: ITA. No:479 /Chny/2025 8. In the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we are deeming it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and hence we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file to ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th April, 2025 at Chennai.