M/S. SUCCESS SYSTEMS ,TIRUPUR vs. ITO, WARD -1(2), CHENNAI

These appeals of the assessee are filed against the separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short ‘ld.CIT(A)’) for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2015-16, vide both the orders dated 30.09.2025 against the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi, u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 26.03.2022 and 31.03.2022 respectively.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm, engaged in the business of whole sale & retail agent of mobile recharges and assessee had not filed its return of income for A.Y.2014-15 and has filed its return of income for A.Y.2015-16 within stipulated time, declaring a turnover of Rs.4,64,04,215/-. As per the information available with the department, the assessee made cash deposits followed by transferring the same in their bank account to the tune of Rs.5,82,24,252/- during the A.Y 2015-16. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act for A.Y 2014-15 and A.Y 2015-16 and the AO issued statutory notices and called for details, but the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices. On perusal of the documents/details available on record, the AO made an addition of Rs.2,34,48,557/- for A.Y 2014-15 and Rs.1,18,20,037/- for A.Y 2015-16 as unexplained income u/s.68 of the Act and concluded the assessment by passing separate orders u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B dated 26.03.2022 and 31.03.2022 respectively.

Aggrieved by the orders of the AO, the assessee preferred two separate appeals before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 29.08.2022 and 28.08.2022 respectively.

The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee without condoning the delay of 126 days for A.Y 2014-15 and 120 days for A.Y 2015-16 in filing the appeal, as non-maintainable and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by passing separate orders dated 30.09.2025. Aggrieved by the impugned order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

The ld.AR submitted that the accountant of the assessee had not checked the income tax portal and its email ID during the relevant period and hence the assessee was not aware of the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) and hence there was a delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of Assessing Officer as the assessee had not participated in the assessment proceedings also. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment proceedings effectively.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the AO had provided sufficient opportunity to appear before him. However, the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed orders by considering the information available with the department and the same have been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC without condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the due dates. Since the assessee has failed to participate before the Assessing Officer and also filed the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay, we levy cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- for each appeal) to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and the assessee shall satisfy the payment of cost before the authorities.

In view of the above and to meet the ends of justice we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO and direct the AO to denovo frame the assessment order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.