Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order dated 05.03.2025. The appeal was filed with a delay of 173 days, for which an affidavit for condonation was submitted. The assessee's original return was filed belatedly and treated as invalid as no documentary evidence was provided for cash deposits made during demonetization.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the submissions from both parties and the need for further examination, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed with a delay of 173 days should be admitted and if the case should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
Sections Cited
69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 144 of the Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha
Year: 2017-18 Krishnamoorthy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 21, Krishna Nagar, 1st Street, Ward 1, Pathirikuppam, Thiruvendripuram, Cuddalore. Cuddalore 607 401. [PAN:DZGPK4436J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Aadhi Sesha Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 16.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 24.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 173 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admit the appeal for adjudication.
At the outset, the ld. AR Shri S. Aadhi Sesha Kumar, Advocate submits that there was no compliance by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed exparte. The ld. AR prayed that the matter may be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer to afford one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case before the Assessing Officer.
The ld. DR Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT fairly conceded that the matter may be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer.
Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee made cash deposits to the tune of ₹.12,05,000/- with M/s. IDBI Bank, Cuddalore Branch during demonetization period. The assessee filed the return of income belatedly on 01.04.2018 after the due date on 31.03.2018 and treated as invalid. Since the assessee could not furnish any details with documentary evidence, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act dated 31.12.2019 treating the cash deposits made during demonetization period as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee to the hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). We find the assistance of assessee is necessary in terms of addition involved under section 69 of the Act. Taking into consideration of the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to afford one more opportunity and remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh after considering the written submissions/ documentary evidences as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.