KALICHAPPAN BASKARAN,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I, INCOME TAX OFFICE

Years: 2017-18 Kalichiappan Baskaran, The Income Tax Officer, No.224 40D/4 Gandi Road, Ward-1, Alangudi, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai Tamil Nadu-622301. [PAN: BAEPB4621F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri N.V.Narayanan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Dr. I.Roopa, Addl. CIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.04.2025 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/250/2023-24/1057265791(1) dated 20.10.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2017-18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assessee has challenged order u/s 250 dated 20.10.2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi.

Page - 1 - of 5 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 330 days in the appeals, in filing before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is a semi-literate person having studied only upto 10th Std and therefore not conversant with tax intricacies. He was not aware that filing of appeal is barred by limitation period. He was also assisted by an ITP who again was not very proficient. 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 costs be imposed for wasting the precious time of judicial authorites. 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 engaged in the agricultural activity. It was submitted that the twin issues under consideration is an addition of Rs.13,13,055/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account during the demonetization period as well as estimation of undisclosed business income of Rs. 2,80,640/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.First Appellate Authority has also confirmed the addition by Page - 2 - of 5 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. 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 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.