Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file a return of income for AY 2016-17 and also failed to respond to notices issued by the AO regarding property purchase and cash deposits. The AO completed the assessment ex-parte, making an addition of Rs. 1,82,35,029/- for unexplained money. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the grounds that it was filed belatedly by 436 days.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to illness, oversight, and lack of awareness. Procedural delays should not impede substantial justice. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned and the matter restored for adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 142(1), 144, 144B, 69A, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: MS. PADMAVATHY S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:
This captioned Appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)] dated 18.09.2025 for Assessment Year 2016-17.
Brief Facts of the case: The appellant did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. As per information, the assessee purchased immovable property of Rs.1,30,00,000/- and cash (AY 2016-17) MANI SRIDHAR(Vs.) CIT (A) deposits of Rs.52,35,029/- during FY 2015-16. Since the appellant failed to file a return, the nature, source and genuineness of these transactions remained unexplained, prompting the jurisdictional AO to initiate re-assessment u/s 147 with due approval. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 17.03.2023 and notices u/s 142(1) on 24.08.2023 and 24.11.2023 seeking details of property purchase and cash deposits. Despite repeated opportunities, including a non- compliance reminder on 08.12.2023 and SCNs u/s.144 on 20.12.2023 and 08.01.2024 proposing addition of Rs.1,82,35,029/-, no reply was received from the appellant. In the absence of a return and any explanation, the AO inferred that the appellant had no substantiating evidence and that the entire amount of Rs. 1,82,35,029/- represented unexplained money. The AO therefore added Rs.1,82,35,029/- to total income u/s 69A, taxable under section 115BBE, and completed the assessment u/s 144/147 r.w.s.
144B determining total income at Rs. 1,82,35,029/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, which came to be dismissed in limine vide order dated 18.09.2025 on the ground that the appeal was filed belatedly by 436 days.
(AY 2016-17) MANI SRIDHAR(Vs.) CIT (A) :: 3 ::
Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) occurred due to illness, oversight and lack of awareness on the part of the assessee.
It was further submitted that for the very same reasons, the assessee could not file the return of income for the year under consideration and also could not respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, resulting in an ex-parte assessment. The learned counsel pleaded that the delay may be condoned and the matter be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
After considering the submissions of both sides, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It is a settled principle of law that procedural delays should not come in the way of substantial justice. We find that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. In the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 436 days and set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A). The matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for (AY 2016-17) MANI SRIDHAR(Vs.) CIT (A) fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings and file necessary details as may be called for by the ld. CIT(A).
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.