RAMAKKONAR BALAKRISHNAN,MADURAI vs. PCIT, , MADURAI

This appeal of the assessee is filed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, (in short ‘PCIT’) for the assessment year 2017-18, vide the order dated 19.03.2022 against the assessment order passed by the AO, Non Corp Ward 1(1), Madurai, u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 18.12.2019.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, proprietor of Mahalakshmi Enterprises and has filed his return of income on 25.05.2017 for the AY 2017-18, declaring total income of Rs.3,11,630/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify “Cash deposit during the year” and the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices to the assessee. In response, the assessee submitted the details of cash deposits for consideration. On perusal of the document submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.1,01,500/- during the demonetization period. The AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 18.12.2019 after making addition of Rs.1,01,500/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act by arriving total assessed income of Rs.4,13,130/-.

The Ld.PCIT set aside the order u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 18.12.2019 passed by the AO as erroneous, with a direction to the AO to pass a fresh assessment after making necessary enquiries with regard to the discrepancy in total turnover of Rs.1.13 Crores, in accordance with law by passing an order u/s.263 of the Act dated 19.03.2022.

At the threshold, we observe that there is a delay of 1,143 days in the filing of the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has furnished an affidavit explaining that the assessee has studied only 7th standard and does not have any knowledge about taxation and is completely dependent on the tax practitioners and only aware of the impugned order passed by the ld.CIT(A) after consultation with tax practitioner and immediately filed the appeal again on 17.07.2025 before the Hon’ble Tribunal.

The ld.AR for the assessee prayed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal by referring to the Affidavit and prayed for one more opportunity to the assessee.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 1,143 days and hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal.

We have heard the case, perused the materials on record, and gone through orders of the authorities below. Upon perusal of the affidavit and after affording due opportunity of hearing from both parties, there is an admitted delay of 1,143 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal against the revisional order passed u/s.263 of the Act dated 19.03.2022. The assessee has filed an affidavit stating that he has studied only up to 7th standard, has no knowledge of taxation matters and is fully dependent upon tax practitioners, and therefore could not file the appeal in time.

The delay involved in the present case is substantial and inordinate, being 1,143 days. The law is well settled that while the expression “sufficient cause” should be construed liberally, the party seeking condonation must demonstrate bona fide reasons explaining the entire period of delay. In the present case, the explanation offered by the assessee is general in nature, namely lack of education and dependence on tax practitioners. No specific dates, circumstances, or material evidence have been furnished to explain the delay for each period. Mere assertion of ignorance of law cannot constitute sufficient cause.

The conduct of the assessee in participating in the order giving effect proceedings and in filing an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) demonstrates that he had knowledge of the impugned order. The plea that he became aware of the order only recently is therefore not acceptable. The affidavit lacks credibility and does not inspire confidence.

It is settled law that inordinate delay cannot be condoned on vague and general grounds, particularly when the conduct of the party shows conscious inaction and acquiescence. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has failed to establish sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 1,143 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the condonation petition is rejected. Since the delay is not condoned, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine as barred by limitation.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.