MRS. BALU SUGUNALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(6), CHENNAI

Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We note that the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act dated 29.12.2019. On perusal of the assessment order as well as impugned order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). We also note that the Assessing Officer issued summon under section 131 of the Act dated 16.12.2019 requiring the assessee to furnish documentary evidence for cash deposits. Taking into consideration of the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh after considering the written submissions/ documentary evidences as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

& 263/Chny/2025 for AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 9. Both the appeals filed by the assessee (wife of Mr. Palani) are delayed by 90 days and 60 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. The assessee filed affidavits for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon 262 & 263/Chny/2025 hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted both the appeals for adjudication.

We note that according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee made cash deposits aggregating to ₹.24,50,000/- into her savings bank account with Axis Bank, Trichy and cash deposits exceeding ₹.2 lakhs into her account and also involved in immovable property transaction on joint property on which her portion of sale consideration comes to ₹.1,02,50,000/-. Further, we note from the assessment order that the assessee filed her return of income for AY 2011-12 on 07.05.2014 declaring a total income of ₹.19,07,061/-, which comprises income from salary of ₹.4,20,000/-, house property of ₹.1,16,851/-, income from other sources of ₹.4,327/- and short term capital gain of ₹.13,65,883/-. We note that the Assessing Officer marked the return filed by the assessee as invalid due to the e-verification not done by the assessee. Further, the revised return submitted by the assessee on 15.05.2015 also marked as invalid for the same reason. No more information is available in the assessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 23.12.2019.

For the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee filed her return of income on 22.07.2013. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 262 & 263/Chny/2025 148 of the Act on 27.03.2018 and also issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act. Since there was no response from the assessee to any of the notices, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 23.12.2019 by assessing total income of the assessee at ₹.36,51,900/-.

The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) for both the assessment years under consideration. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals for want of prosecution.

Having heard both the parties, we find from the impugned orders that the ld. CIT(A) noted the fact that the assessee shifted her residence from Trichy to Chennai and therefore, the notices issued by the Assessing Officer for both the assessment years, the assessee was unaware of the notices sent to the Trichy address. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that non-compliance of the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) was neither willful nor wanton but due to the circumstances beyond her control as her husband was suffering from heart disease and could not able to concentrate on income tax matters for both the assessment years and prayed that the assessee may be afforded one more opportunity of being heard to substantiate her case before the Assessing Officer. Considering the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the 262 & 263/Chny/2025 Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh after considering the written submissions/ documentary evidences as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate her claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, all the appeals of both the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 21st March, 2025 at Chennai.