PRAVEEN SIDHARTHAN PILLAI,KOLLAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned a 43-day delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. Noting that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was silent on the service of notice of hearing to the assessee, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a meaningful opportunity to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a real estate businessman, deposited significant cash in his bank account during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer added the entire cash under Section 69 and also made an addition for interest on unexplained credits. The Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the AO's order ex-parte as no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred by affirming the assessment order ex-parte without ensuring proper service of hearing notice to the assessee, thereby denying adequate opportunity.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH:COCHIN
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
Date of Hearing : 29.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 O R D E R PERPRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 23.10.2024 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069895655(1) and relates to the AY 2017-18.
There is a delay of 43 days in filing this appeal before us. Ld. Counsel for the assessee drawing attention of the bench pointed out that there was reasonable cause behind the non-filing of the appeal within time.
Ld. D.R. opposed the prayer of the counsel for the assessee.
Praveen Sidharthan Pillai, Kollam Page 2 of 3 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, we hereby condone the delay of 43 days and proceed to decide the matter.
Brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee is an individual and resident of Karunagappalli, Kollam. The assessee is engaged in the business of real estate. For the impugned assessment year, it is alleged that assessee has deposited huge cash in its bank account. The assessee has filed the return of income on 23.1.2018 disclosing an income of Rs.3,74,980/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny for the reason that cash was deposited in the bank of assessee during demonetization period. Asking for the source of the cash, the AO issued various notices to the assessee, in response to which assessee filed certain explanations. However, dissatisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the AO added the entire cash deposited u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The AO also made an addition of Rs.4,01,792/-towards interest on the unexplained credits of Rs.61,43,931/-.
Aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order of AO since nobody appeared from the side of assessee.
At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh because the assessee has not received any notice of hearing from the office of ld. CIT(A).
Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
Praveen Sidharthan Pillai, Kollam Page 3 of 3 9. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that one more opportunity is to be given to the assessee, in view of the fact that ld. CIT(A)’s order is silent with respect to the service of notice of hearing on the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit this matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, that ld. CIT(A) will grant meaningful opportunity to the assessee before passing any order.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd Jun, 2025
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
