SOMASEKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD 7(3), CHENNAI

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in poultry trading business under the name of M/s. Sri Sai Broilers and had not filed his return of income for A.Y.2018-19 and A.Y.2019-20 respectively. As per the information available with the department, the assessee made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.1,43,05,350/- and cash withdrawals to the tune of Rs.4,00,617/- into his current account maintained with ICICI Bank during the A.Y.2018-19 and cash deposits (including through bearer’s cheque) to the tune of Rs.1,66,32,500/- and cash withdrawals to the tune of Rs.8,33,912/- during the A.Y.2019-20. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act for A.Y 2018-19 and A.Y 2019-20 and the AO issued statutory notices to the assessee and called for details, but the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices. On perusal of the documents/details available on record, the AO made an addition of Rs.2,86,23,498/- for A.Y 2018-19 and Rs.3,36,73,893/- for A.Y 2019-20 as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and concluded the assessment by passing exparte separate orders u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B dated 09.02.2023 and 03.01.2024 respectively.

Aggrieved by the orders of the AO, the assessee preferred two separate appeals before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 08.05.2025 with a delay in filing the by 788 days for A.Y 2018-19 and 461 days for A.Y 2019-20 respectively.

The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee with a delay of 788 days and 461 days respectively without having any sufficient reason before the first appellate authority. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the orders of the AO by passing separate orders dated 15.10.2025. Aggrieved by the impugned orders of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

The ld.AR submitted that the tax consultant of the assessee had not regularly checked the income tax portal and his email ID due to his serious illness and hence the assessee was not aware of the notices issued by the AO during assessment proceedings and the assessment order and hence there was a delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of Assessing Officer as the assessee had not participated in the assessment proceedings. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment proceedings effectively.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the AO had provided sufficient opportunity to appear before him. However, the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed orders by considering the information available with the department and the same have been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC without condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the due dates. Since the assessee has failed to participate before the Assessing Officer and also filed the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay, we levy cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.25,000/- for each appeal) to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and the assessee shall satisfy the payment of cost before the authorities.

Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the before ld.CIT(A) as the assessee had filed the condonation of delay in his form 35 itself and hence, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A). Since the assessment orders were passed exparte, we remit the matter back to the file of AO and direct the AO to denovo frame the assessment order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th March, 2026 at Chennai.