Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Sasikumar Kanagarajan, did not file his return of income for AY 2012-13. The AO reopened the case under Section 147 and made additions based on cash deposits and contract receipts. The assessee failed to respond to notices from the AO and CIT(A).
Held
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Due to the assessee's non-participation before the AO and CIT(A), a cost of Rs. 20,000/- was levied. The order of CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and whether the matter should be remitted to the AO for fresh assessment.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 194C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
आदेश / O R D E R
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 17.04.2024, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y) 2012-13 against the order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) dated 25.09.2021.
At the threshold, we observe that there is a delay of 513 days in the filing of the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has furnished an affidavit explaining that Mr. Kavin, Accountant, Namakkal maintained the books of accounts of the assessee and failed to take action during the appellate proceedings due to COVID-19 Pandemic and the assessee became aware only after freezing of bank accounts by the Income Tax Department. Upon perusal of the affidavit and after affording due opportunity of hearing from both parties, we are satisfied that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause for not presenting the appeal within the statutory period prescribed under law. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed his return of income for A.Y.2012-13. Based on the information available with the department, the assessee made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.47,57,740/- into his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank, Namakkal. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act and the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices to the assessee and called for details, but the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices. On perusal of the data available from the department, the AO found that the assessee has received contract receipts from various parties to the tune of Rs.8,77,990/- during the year under consideration on which no TDS has been made u/s.194C of the Act. Further, the assessee did not explain the source of cash deposit also. Hence, the AO made additions by arriving at a total income of Rs.54,25,730 for the A.Y 2012-13 and concluded the assessment proceedings by passing an order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 25.09.2021.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 19.01.2022.
At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided four opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 4 of the ld.CIT(A) orders to support the appeal of the assessee. However, the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices and hence, the ld. CIT(A) passed an order dated 17.04.2024 by confirming the order of the Assessing Officer.
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 he could not appear and submit the valid evidence before the Assessing Officer as well as 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. 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 both the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to appear before them. 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 order by considering the information available with the department and the same has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to non-participation of the assessee. Since the assessee has failed to participate before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld.CIT(A), we levy the cost of Rs.20,000/- 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 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.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04th February, 2026 at Chennai.