Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, a charitable organization, failed to file ITR for AY 2015-16. The AO subsequently issued a notice under Section 148 concerning unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 4.16 crores, which were added to the income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appellant's appeal due to a 131-day delay in filing, refusing to condone it.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence for the condonation of the 131-day delay. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal after affording the appellant a proper hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without granting the appellant an opportunity to adduce evidence for condonation, necessitating a remand for de novo disposal.
Sections Cited
139(1), 148, 147, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) both dated 30.08.2025 for Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16 & 2016-17.
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 2015-16 are stated herein.
& 824/Coch/2025 SNDP Yogam Vaikom Union 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a charitable religious organization. The appellant had not filed return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2015-16. Subsequently, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits in the account maintained with Union Bank of India aggregating to Rs. 4,16,87,460/- during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16, the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter called "the AO"), formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 25.04.2022. In response to notice u/s. 148, the appellant filed return of income on 09.01.2023 disclosing income of Rs. 80,771/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 27.03.2024 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs. 4,16,87,460/-, While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 4,16,87,460/- being the cash deposits made in the account maintained with the Union Bank of India as unexplained money of the appellant for alleged failure of the appellant to substantiate the source of cash deposits.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 131 days. The CIT(A) on due consideration of the application for condonation of delay had refused to condone the delay by holding that the appellant failed to adduce evidence in support of the averments made in the petition seeking condonation
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
The learned A.R. submits that the CIT(A) without giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant simply refused to condone the delay and, therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh disposal.
On the other hand, the learned CIT-DR had no serious objection for remand of the matter to the file of CIT(A) as the CIT(A) had not given reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the averments made in the petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before him.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for remanding the matter to the file of AO for fresh disposal. Therefore, the matter is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo disposal in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
& 824/Coch/2025 SNDP Yogam Vaikom Union 10. Since identical issues and facts are involved in assessee’s appeal our findings in ITA No. 823/Coch/2025 shall apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th November, 2025.