PONNUCHAMY,COIMBATORE V. ITO, NCW-4(4), COIMBATORE

ITA 2068/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Ponnuchamy, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had dismissed his appeal due to a delay of 103 days in filing without sufficient cause. The assessee had initially declared an income of Rs.5,10,800 for the assessment year 2018-19, which was later contested by the Income Tax Officer due to discrepancies in property sale value and undisclosed time deposits. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not participated adequately in the earlier proceedings and had not responded to statutory notices, leading to an addition of Rs.52,75,750 to his taxable income. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present his case before the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778561 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: GIRISH KUMAR S
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; TDS
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सीʼ \u0011ा यपीठ, चे\u0016ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI \u0018ी मनु क ुमा र िग र, \u0011ा ियक सद एवं \u0018ी एस. आर. रघुना था , लेखा सद क े सम' BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2068/Chny/2025 िनधा (रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ponnuchamy, 5/224, East Arasur, Sulur, Coimbatore – 641 407. Tamil Nadu. vs. Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp Ward-4(4) Coimbatore. [PAN: APFPP-3342-G] (अपीला थ*/Appellant) (+,थ*/Respondent) अपीला थ* की ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. Girish Kumar S, Advocate for Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate. +,थ* की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT. सुनवा ई की ता रीख/Date of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की ता रीख/Date of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM : This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi, (in short Ld. CIT(A)) for the assessment year 2018-19, vide order dated 30.06.2025. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income on 18.07.2018 for the A.Y.2018-19 by declaring an income of Rs.5,10,800/-. On verification of the information available with the department, the assessee sold immovable property for Rs.3,00,000/-, whereas the property was valued at Rs.17,82,900/- and made time deposits to the tune of Rs.31,50,000/- for the F.Y.2017-18. Based on the above Printed from counselvise.com :-2-: ITA. No:2068/Chny/2025 information, proceedings u/s.148A were initiated and notice u/s.148 was issued on 01.04.2022. In response, the assessee filed a return of income on 07.06.2022 for A.Y.2018-19 by declaring an income of Rs.6,42,850/-. Further, statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. Since the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings and not responded to the statutory notices, the AO made an addition of Rs.14,82,900/- as variation in respect of issue of Long Term Capital Gain and Rs.31,50,000/- as variation in respect of income from other sources U/s.69 of the Act and assessed Rs.52,75,750/- as taxable income and concluded the assessment u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 20.12.2023. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC on 01.05.2024. 4. At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has found that the assessee filed an application with a delay of 103 days and had not shown any “sufficient cause” for not presenting the appeal within 30 days from the date of service of the notice of demand and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine. The ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) had not considered the reason for filing the appeal before the first appellate authority belatedly by 103 days. Hence, prayed for giving one more opportunity before the ld.CIT(A) to prosecute the case on merits. 5. Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the Assessing Officer provided sufficient opportunity to appear before them. However, the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices in time and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A). 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Office of the First Appellate Authority had issued five hearing notices as shown in his order in para 6.1. It was the contention of the ld.AR that the assessee had failed to take note of hearing notices sent from the office of the Printed from counselvise.com :-3-: ITA. No:2068/Chny/2025 ld.CIT(A). We note that the AO has passed an order by making an addition of Rs.52,75,750/- (including TDs amounting Rs.31,50,000/- as undisclosed investment u/s.69 of the Act) as treated as taxable income and the same has been upheld by the ld.CIT(A) - NFAC due to non-participation of the assessee in the first appellate proceedings. Since, the ld.AR has assured the bench that the assessee will participate in the appellate proceedings given an opportunity again, in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee needs to be given one more opportunity to prosecute the appeal on merits. 7. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we are deeming it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the before ld.CIT(A) as the assessee had filed the condonation of delay in his form 35 itself and hence we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file to ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 13th October, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु क ुमार िग र) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) \u0011ाियक सद /JUDICIAL MEMBER (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखासद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे\u0016ई/Chennai, िदना ंक/Dated, the 13th October, 2025 jk Printed from counselvise.com :-4-: ITA. No:2068/Chny/2025 आदेश की +ितिलिप अ3ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीला थ*/Appellant 2. +,थ*/Respondent 3.आयकर आयु5/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. िवभा गीय +ितिनिध/DR 5. गा ड( फा ईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "