Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual earning income from consumer products and SIM card distribution, did not file their return for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions based on cash deposits and non-cash credits, leading to an ex-parte assessment. The assessee failed to appear before the AO and the CIT(A), with the CIT(A) upholding the AO's order.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 29-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance due to illness in the family and lack of awareness of proceedings. The Tribunal also noted the CIT(A)'s failure to consider additional evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and if the CIT(A) properly considered the additional evidence and assessee's non-participation.
Sections Cited
144, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA
आदेश /O R D E R
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :
This appeal of the assessee is filed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18, vide order dated 31.07.2025.
At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 29 days in the filing of the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has furnished an affidavit explaining that the assessee the assessee did not view the Income -Tax e-filing portal during the relevant period of passing of the ld. CIT(A)’s order and he became aware in the third week of October 2025 and immediately filed the appeal on 29.10.2025. Upon perusal of the affidavit and after affording due
:-2-: ITA. No:3011/Chny/2025 opportunity of hearing to 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, earning income from sale of consumer products and Aircel Distributor of Prepaid SIM Card and had not filed his return of income for AY 2017-18. Based on the information available with the department, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.30,31,500/- during the demonetization period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 and a total cash deposit of Rs.2,39,20,031/- during the F.Y. 2016-17, apart from deposits other than cash of Rs.23,75,174/- into his Current Account maintained with Indian Bank. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices and called for details, but the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices. Since the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment u/s.144 of the Act on 30.10.2019 by making an addition of Rs.2,39,20,031/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and Rs.1,90,014/- as 8% of non-cash credits treated as profits and arrived a total income of Rs.2,41,10,045/-.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC on 30.11.2019.
At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has not considered the additional evidence submitted by the assessee owing to the document not being submitted before the Assessing Officer and unsatisfactory and incomplete evidence filed before the first appellate authority. Hence, the ld.CIT(A), NFAC not allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the order of the AO by passing an order dated 31.07.2025. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us.
:-3-: ITA. No:3011/Chny/2025
The ld.AR submitted that the assessee was forced to take care of that business from his father since 2016 due to poor health condition of the father and the assessee unaware of the income tax proceedings and hence he was not aware of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as the ld.CIT(A) and hence he could not appear before the Assessing Officer as well as ld.CIT(A). Further, the ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) failed to consider the additional evidence filed before the first appellate authority. In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order of 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 an ex-parte order by considering the information available with the department and the same has been not allowed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to non-participation of the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld.CIT(A). Since, the assessee has failed to participate before the Assessing Officer as well as the first appellate authority, we levy the cost of Rs.10,000/- 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 order in accordance with law, after providing
:-4-: ITA. No:3011/Chny/2025 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, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 05th January, 2026 at Chennai.