SHAMSUDEEN ABDUL KHADAR,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD-2, KOLLAM
Facts
The appellant did not file an income tax return for AY 2017-18. Based on information of a cash deposit of Rs. 12,07,500/-, the AO reopened the assessment under Section 148 and made an addition under Section 68 as unexplained income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appellant's subsequent appeal for non-prosecution, leading the appellant to approach the ITAT, seeking condonation of a 50-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
Held
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the 50-day delay in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided (senior citizen, hospitalization, Covid-19 lockdown) were not contradicted. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on its merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the 50-day delay in filing the appeal, given the appellant's reasons of being a senior citizen, hospitalization due to infection, and Covid-19 lockdown.
Sections Cited
139(1), 148, 147, 144B, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 768/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shamsudeen Abdul Khadar .......... Appellant Nusaifa Manzil, Chithara, Madathara Kottarakkara, Kollam 691541 [PAN: ARJPA0218Q] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kollam .......... Respondent Assessee by: ------- None ------- Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 15.07.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. The appellant had not filed the return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2017-18. Based on the information that the appellant had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 12,07,500/- during AY 2017-18 in bank account maintained with Kerala Grameen Bank, the AO formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Therefore, the AO
2 ITA No. 768/Coch/2025 Shamsudeen Abdul Khadar reopened the assessment after obtaining necessary approval from appropriate authorities by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 31.12.2019. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the appellant filed return of income on 29.05.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 3,69,350/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 20.09.2021 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at total income of Rs. 15,76,850/-. While doing so, the AO made addition u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs. 12,07,500/- as unexplained income of the appellant for the failure of the appellant to prove the source of said cash deposit.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR.
I heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The solitary issue that arises for my consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 50 days in filing the appeal before him. The appellant had filed
3 ITA No. 768/Coch/2025 Shamsudeen Abdul Khadar explanation seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant is a senior citizen and hospitalized due to infection in leg during the hearing period so he could not contact the accountant for giving proper reply to the notices. Lockdown in the region due to Covid-19 also played a key role in failure to comply with notices. I am of the considered opinion that in the absence of any evidence contrary to the averments made in the condonation petition before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the matter on merits. Therefore, the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay of 50 days and adjudicate the issue in the appeal on merits.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st November, 2025.
Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 21st November, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 2. The Respondent 5. Guard File 3. The Pr. CIT concerned Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin
