NATESAN GOPI,KANCHIPURAM V. ITO, NCW-22(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1124/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Natesan Gopi, an individual engaged in the business of trading milk, who appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi, which had earlier dismissed his appeal ex-parte. The original assessment by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, included an addition of Rs. 34,10,000 to the assessee's income, attributed to unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-response from the assessee to multiple notices. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the current appeal due to significant delay and lack of a condonation petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781442 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. ANITHA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ \u0011ा यपीठ, चे\u0016ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0019ी मनु क ुमा र िग र, \u0011ा ियक सद एवं \u0019ी जगदीश, लेखा सद क े सम' BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1124/Chny/2025 िनधा 8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Natesan Gopi, No.33-6, Paventhar Salai NH-1, Maraimalainagar, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram – 603 209. PAN: BANPG 8807M Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-22(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant) (\b यथ\u0007/Respondent) अपीलाथF की ओर से/ Appellant by : None HIथF की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 25.08.2023 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 23.12.2019. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1124/Chny/2025 Natesan Gopi :- 2 -: 2. When this appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and accordingly, the hearing was proceeded with the able assistance of Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), Ms. R. Anitha, Add. CIT. 3. The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading of milk under the name and style of M/s. Gopi Milk Centre. The assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.5,63,920/-. The A.O, in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act has made addition of cash deposits during the demonetization period of Rs.34,10,000/- as the assessee has not furnished any valid explanation. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex-parte as assessee had not responded to four notices issued during the appellate proceedings. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal in Form-36 on 07.04.2025. The assessee in Form 36, has stated that the order appealed against was passed and served on 28.08.2023. Therefore, the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 539 days. However, in column No. 11 of Form-36, where the assessee was required to mention whether there was any delay in Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1124/Chny/2025 Natesan Gopi :- 3 -: filing the appeal, the assessee has stated “No” and not enclosed any petition for condonation of delay. 4. The Registry has issued notice to the assessee fixing date of hearing on 03.07.2025, but none appeared for assessee. The case was adjourned to 28.07.2025, by issue of notice by RPAD, but none appeared for the assessee. Further notices were issued by RPAD fixing hearing date on 14.08.2025 and 25.09.2025, but there was no representation by assessee. Considering the above facts, and the fact that the appeal has been filed beyond the date prescribed in section 253(3) of the Act with delay of 539 days and there is no condonation petition, explaining the cause of delay as required u/s 253(5) of the Act, therefore, the appeal is not admitted and dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 29th day of September, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु क ुमार िग र) (Manu Kumar Giri) \u0011ाियक सद / Judicial Member (जगदीश) (Jagadish) लेखा लेखा लेखा लेखा सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य /Accountant Member चे\u0013नई/Chennai, \u0016दनांक/Dated: 29th September, 2025. EDN/- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1124/Chny/2025 Natesan Gopi :- 4 -: आदेश क\u0019 \bितिल प अ े षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u000f/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय \bितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0018 फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "