MR. ANIL,ERNAKULAM V. ITO, NON CORP WARD-1(10, KOCHI

ITA 614/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Anil Poliyaparambil, the appellant, who appealed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was the addition of Rs.1,50,92,230 as unexplained cash credit in the assessment order passed under sections 147 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) was initially dismissed due to a significant delay (254 days) in filing, attributed to the ill health of the appellant's Chartered Accountant. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to present his case and thus restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh examination, including the delay's sufficiency and the substantive issues of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785239 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land acquisition Anantnag and another versus Mst. Katiji and others, Vijay Vishin Meghani v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: C.V. VISHNU DAS K
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained cash credit; Bonafide belief
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM ITA Nos. 614& 615/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Anil .......... Appellant Poliyaparambil, Koothattukulam 686662 [PAN: BEBPA1163E] vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri C.V. Vishnu Das K. Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM Instant group of appeal of the assessee is preferred against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in shot, ‘the Act) for the Assessment Year 2017-18, date of orders 13/06/2025 & 17/06/2025. The impugned orders emanated from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (for brevity, the “Ld. AO”) passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, date Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 614& 615/Coch/2025 Mr. Anil of order 29/03/2022 and order passed u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, date of order 07/09/2022. 2. Both the appeals have common issue. All the appeals are heard together& disposed of together. ITA No. 614/Coch/2025 is taken as lead case. ITA No. 614/Coch/2025 3. The assessee had not filed the return of income U/s 139(1) of the Act. The return was filed in response to notice U/s 148 of the Act. The assessment was completed with addition of Rs.1,50,92,230/- as unexplained cash credit. Being aggrieved, the assessee challenged the impugned assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal was filed with a delay of 254 days. The Ld. CIT(A), without going into the merits of the case, dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. The assessee, being further aggrieved, has filed the present appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the material available on record. It is noted that the assessee had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 279 days. The explanation was filed by the assessee before the 1st Appellate Authority which reproduced as below:- \"It is humbly submitted that this prayer with a request for condonation of delayfor an extension of time to file this appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Appellant submits that there is a delay of 311 days in preferring the above-mentioned Appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 614& 615/Coch/2025 Mr. Anil The Appellant submits that the cause for the above-mentioned delay in filing the appeal is due to the ill health of the Chartered Accountant with whom the appellant had entrusted all the documents for filing the appeal. The same has caused undue hardship to the appellant to find another Chartered Accountant and handing over of al/ documents related to filing the appeal. The Appellant further submits that there have been no wilful delays or latches on its part for preferring an Appeal. The Appellant is of the bonafide belief that the impugned order issued by the Respondent is liable to be set aside for the grounds stated in the appeal docket submitted herewith. It is humbly prayed that based upon the totality of the circumstances mentioned above, the learned CIT(Appeals) may be pleased to consider the prayer of the appellant in granting the condonation for delay of 311 days in appearing before your learned self forj ustice and equity. It is a trite position of law, crystallized by the Hon'b/e Supreme Court of India in Collector, Land acquisition Anantnag and another versus Mst. Katiji and others, reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.) that refusal to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2017] 86 taxmann.com 98 (Bombay) was pleased to condone a delay of 2984 days when the Assessee showed bonafide reasons for not preferring the Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.” The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the appeals on the ground of limitation, without examining the submissions of the assessee on merits. In our considered view, reasonable opportunity was denied to the assessee for advancing his claim. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo on the issue of limitation, by adopting a lenient approach. The Ld. DR argued but had not made any strong objection against the decision of the bench. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 614& 615/Coch/2025 Mr. Anil The assessee is directed to file an affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A) explaining the delay with sufficient cause. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, so as not to prejudice the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to add, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the appellate order is passed. At the same time, the assessee is expected to be diligent and co-operative in the set-aside proceedings to facilitate expeditious disposal of the appeal. ITA No. 615/Coch/2025 5. This appeal pertain to penalty order under section 271AAC(1) of the Act amounting to Rs.11,65,874/-. Since the corresponding quantum appeal has already been set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo, we consider it appropriate to restore the present penalty appeal also to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate the penalty matter afresh, after deciding the quantum issues on merits, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 & 615/Coch/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (ANIKESH BANERJEE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 30th October, 2025 n.p. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 614& 615/Coch/2025 Mr. Anil Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin Printed from counselvise.com "