Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, an individual engaged in civil contracts, did not file a regular return for AY 2012-13. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 after finding huge cash deposits, and subsequently added Rs. 30,70,100/- as unexplained gold loan repayment, which the CIT(A) confirmed. The appellant then filed appeals before the Tribunal with a delay of 375 days, citing an eye operation.
Held
The Tribunal noted a significant delay of 375 days in filing the appeals. It found that the appellant did not provide sufficient reasons to condone the entire period of delay, despite submitting a medical certificate for an eye operation. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals on the ground of un-condoned delay.
Key Issues
Whether there was sufficient cause to condone the 375-day delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal.
Sections Cited
148, 143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
O R D E R These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 22.07.2025 & 03.01.2024 for Assessment Years (AY) 2012-13 & 2013-14, respectively.
Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing for AY 2012-13 are stated herein.
& 729/Coch/2025 Subhash Chandran Pundarikashan 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of execution of civil contracts. No regular return of income was filed for AY 2012-13. Based on the information that the appellant made huge cash deposits in banks, the AO formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was issued on 09.12.2014. In response to the notice u/s. 148 the appellant filed return of income on 02.03.2016 declaring income of Rs. 5,90,030/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1), Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 31.03.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at total income of Rs. 36,60,130/-. While doing so, the AO found that the appellant had failed to explain the source of repayment of gold loan of Rs. 30,70,100/-. Accordingly, treated it as unexplained money of the appellant.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO rejecting the contention of the appellant that the loan repayment of Rs. 30,70,110/- was made out of earlier withdrawals made by the appellant.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
1. & 729/Coch/2025 Subhash Chandran Pundarikashan 7. At the outset I find that the present appeal is filed with a delay of 375 days. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant was undergoing eye operation. Consequently, there was a delay in filing the appeal. In support of this the appellant had also filed medical certificate from Dr. Ashad Sivaraman. From the medical certificate filed by the assessee it is clear that he underwent PRP laser 2 sitting in both eyes on 11.02.2019 and 25.02.2019 and vitrectomy + fluid gas exchange + endolaser in the right eye on 10.03.2019. Therefore, he did not explain the reasons for the delay between 21.07.2024 to 03.10.2025. Thus, the appellant had not shown any sufficient reason to condone the delay of 375 days in filing the appeal. Appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th November, 2025.