KRISHNAMOORTHY ,CUDDALORE V. ITO, WARD 1, CUDDALORE

ITA 3362/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Krishnamoorthy, against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue in the appeal was the treatment of cash deposits amounting to 12,05,000 made during the demonetization period, which were considered unexplained investments under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was initially dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee. However, upon review, the Tribunal found the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal to be bona fide and decided to remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839814 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: S. AADHI SESHA KUMAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 144; 69

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3362/Chny/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Krishnamoorthy, No. 21, Krishna Nagar, 1st Street, Pathirikuppam, Thiruvendripuram, Cuddalore 607 401. [PAN:DZGPK4436J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Cuddalore. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Aadhi Sesha Kumar, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 16.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 24.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 173 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.3362/Chny/25 2 prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset, the ld. AR Shri S. Aadhi Sesha Kumar, Advocate submits that there was no compliance by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed exparte. The ld. AR prayed that the matter may be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer to afford one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case before the Assessing Officer. 4. The ld. DR Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT fairly conceded that the matter may be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer. 5. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee made cash deposits to the tune of ₹.12,05,000/- with M/s. IDBI Bank, Cuddalore Branch during demonetization period. The assessee filed the return of income belatedly on 01.04.2018 after the due date on 31.03.2018 and treated as invalid. Since the assessee could not furnish any details with documentary evidence, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act dated 31.12.2019 treating the cash deposits made during demonetization period as unexplained Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.3362/Chny/25 3 investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee to the hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). We find the assistance of assessee is necessary in terms of addition involved under section 69 of the Act. Taking into consideration of the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to afford one more opportunity and remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh after considering the written submissions/ documentary evidences as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 24th February, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 24.02.2026 Vm/- Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.3362/Chny/25 4 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "