Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings against the assessee, an individual, for AY 2015-16 upon discovering a term deposit of Rs.46,02,223/-. The assessee filed a return of income of Rs.1,27,830/-. The assessment was completed at a total income of Rs.50,27,224/-, including additions for unexplained term and cash deposits.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a sufficient cause for the 92-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to illness, supported by a medical certificate. Therefore, the delay was condoned.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without considering the sufficient cause explained by the assessee.
Sections Cited
148, 147, 144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
Masudha Begam, Income Tax Officer, D.No.55A/66F, New No.5A/66F, Ward-1(1), Perambalur Post, Trichy. Madhanagopalapuram, Perambalur TK, Perambalur Dist, Tamil Nadu-621 212. [PAN: AYVPM2731M] Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr.P.Venkatesan, Advocate, Revenue by : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT Date of Hearing : 02.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, [‘CIT(A)’ in short], Delhi, dated 31.10.2025 for AY-2015-16.
2.0 The appellant is an individual and no regular return of income for the AY-2015-16 filed by the appellant. The AO formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax, based on the information the appellant made a term deposit of Rs.46,02,223/- during the previous year relevant to the AY-2015-16. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 09.04.2022. and SA-134/Chny/2025 In response to the notice u/s 148, the appellant had filed return of income disclosing Rs.1,27,830/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by NAFC (herein after called Assessing Authority) u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act 1961 on 12.01.2024 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 at a total income of Rs.50,27,224/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs.46,02,223/- on account of unexplained term deposit and Rs.2,97,171/- on account of cash deposits.
3.0 Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal on the grounds of delay by holding that the appellant failed to explain the delay of 92 days in filing appeal before him.
4.0 Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
5.0 The learned AR submits that the NFAC grossly erred in dismissing the appeal by holding that appeal is barred by limitation, in as much as, there was a sufficient reason for delay in filing before the CIT(A). On the other hand, the Sr.DR seriously objected for remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the issues in appeal on merits.
6.0 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) was Page - 2 - of 4 and SA-134/Chny/2025 justified in dismissing the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the NFAC, it would be clear that the NFAC had refused to condone the delay on the ground that the appellant had failed to demonstrate the sufficient cause for delay of 92 days in filing of appeal. On perusal of the Form-35, it would be clear that the appellant has explained that the delay had occurred on account of illness of the appellant. The NFAC, even without making a reference to the explanation of the appellant, jumped into the conclusion that the appellant had failed to demonstrate the sufficient reason for the delay. Even before us, the appellant has filed medical certificate to show that the appellant was ailing from lumbar spondylosis. In our considered opinion, this would constitute the sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal before the NFAC and therefore we condone the delay of 92 days. The case laws relied upon by NFAC have no application to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we reverse the order passed by the NFAC and remit the matter back to the file of the NFAC for de novo disposal of appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
7.0 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Page - 3 - of 4 and SA-134/Chny/2025 8.0 Since the appeal was disposed of by this tribunal, the stay petition No.134 / Chny / 2025 for AY – 2015-16 filed by the appellant becomes in fructuous and accordingly it is dismissed. Order pronounced on 5th , January-2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (INTURI RAMA RAO) Vice president Accountant Member Chennai, Dated: 5th , January-2026. KB/- Copy to:
1. 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT - Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. DR 5. GF Page - 4 - of 4