Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which arose from an assessment order under Section 144. The AO observed substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank account during the demonetization period, but the assessee did not file a return of income nor responded to notices. The AO treated the entire amount as unexplained income under Section 69A.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a substantiated explanation for the inordinate delay of 692 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal was not convinced by the reasons provided by the assessee and decided to dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed by the assessee should be admitted given the inordinate delay of 692 days, and whether the explanation provided for the delay is substantiated.
Sections Cited
144, 69A, 142(1), 139
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad
करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : None Assessee Represented by राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Suresh A, Sr. AR Department Represented by सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 16/03/2026 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 20/03/2026 Date of Pronouncement ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 12/09/2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 144 of the 2 Suresh Nammi vs. ITO Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 04/12/2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:
“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous in law and facts of the case.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the assessment of Rs. 16,82,555/- the total credit summation in the Bank Account.
3. The appellant crave leave to add to, alter, DLEETE, modify, amend, substitute all OR any of the above grounds.”
Succinctly stated, the AO observed during the phase of online verification under “Operation Clean Money” that the assessee had during the demonetization period, i.e., 09/11/2016 to 30/12/2016 made substantial cash deposits in his savings bank account No.102111930002382 with HDFC Bank, Miyapur Branch, Hyderabad amounting to Rs.4,36,500/-, but had not filed his return of income for the subject year. The AO issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 14/12/2017, 16/01/2018 and 23/09/2019 calling upon the assessee to file his return of income. However, as the assessee had neither filed his return of income under section 139 of the Act nor responded to the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act, therefore, the AO was constrained to proceed and frame the assessment to the best of his judgment under section 144 of the Act.
During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that there were various credit entries (including cash deposits) aggregating to Rs.16,82,555/- appearing in the aforementioned bank account of the assessee during the subject year. As the assessee had failed to come forth 3 Suresh Nammi vs. ITO with any explanation regarding the source of the aforesaid credit entries/cash deposits, therefore, the AO held the entire amount as having been sourced out of the assessee’s unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under section 144 of the Act, dated 04/12/2019 determined the income of the assessee at Rs.16,82,555/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success.
The assessee aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us.
Although, the assessee appellant was validly put to notice of the hearing of the appeal, but on all dates on which the matter was earlier posted for hearing, i.e., 27/11/2025, 07/01/2026 and 11/02/2026, he had failed to put an appearance. Also, when the matter was today called up for hearing, there was neither any representation by the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment filed before us. We thus, considering the aforesaid facts are constrained to proceed with and dispose of the appeal as per Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 after hearing the respondent revenue and perusing the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. Sr-DR”) and perused the orders of the authorities below.
4 Suresh Nammi vs. ITO 8. We find that the present appeal involves a delay of 692 days. The assessee has filed before us an application seeking condonation of the delay, dated 05/10/2025 along with an affidavit of even date. It is stated by him that the delay in filing of the present appeal had crept in for multi facet reasons, viz., (i) that the assessee is a partner in a firm, whose business had been shut down due to financial constraints coupled with certain other difficulties; (ii) that due to closure of the business of the firm, its staff, who were earlier looking after the business had left the organization due to which his income tax matter had remained unattended; (iii) that due to financial constraints the assistance of professional help could not be availed; and (iv) that the copy of the assessment order could not be downloaded and had to be physically obtained from the AO on 23/09/2025. The assessee, based on the aforesaid reasons had stated that as the delay of 692 days in filing of the present appeal had crept in for the reasons which were neither deliberate, nor attributable to any negligence on his part, therefore, in all fairness and in the interest of justice the same be condoned.
We have given thoughtful consideration and are unable to persuade ourselves to concur with the unsubstantiated explanation given by the assessee regarding the inordinate delay of 692 days involved in filing of the present appeal.
As the assessee has failed to substantiate his explanation regarding the inordinate delay of 692 days involved in filing the present appeal, 5 Suresh Nammi vs. ITO therefore, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation itself.
Although, the assessee had tried to impress upon us that there were multi facet reasons leading to the delay in filing of the present appeal, viz., financial constraints, unavailability of the copy of the assessment order which could only be gathered from the AO on 23/09/2025, etc., we are of firm conviction that he ought to have remained vigilant regarding the filing of the present appeal within the prescribed time period. Although, we are not oblivion of the fact that a liberal view should be taken regarding the delay in filing of the appeal, but are afraid that such liberality cannot be stretched to condone an unsubstantiated inordinate delay of 692 days in the case of the present assessee before us, who since inception had neither participated in the assessment proceedings nor prosecuted the matter before the First Appellate Authority.
Be that as it may, in the totality of the facts involved in the present appeal, we dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation itself.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th March, 2026. S /- (मधुसूदन साव"डया) (रवीश सूद) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (RAVISH SOOD) लेखासद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यकसद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER d/-Hyderabad, dated 20/03/2026