S.G. SRINIVASAN,VELLORE V. ITO, WARD-1, VELLORE

ITA 1926/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves S.G. Srinivasan, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was initially delayed due to the assessee's health problems and his accountant's personal issues, which prevented timely filing and compliance with previous notices. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's reasons for the delay and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination on merits, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity for the assessee to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773948 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Recovery proceedings
• Section: 142(1); 68; 131

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ \u0010ा यपीठ चे\u0015ई म\u0018। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1926/Chny/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) S.G. Srinivasan, No. 15, Venkatramana Bhagavathar Street, Walajapet, Vellore-632513. PAN No. BELPS 3581 L Vs. I.T.O., Ward-1, Vellore No. 2, Barracks Cross Street, Officers Line, Vellore, Tamil Nadu-632001. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by None Department represented by Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT. Date of hearing 16/09/2025 Date of pronouncement 26/09/2025 PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 04/09/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 as per ground of appeal on record. 2. At the outset of hearing, we found that no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, therefore, we decided to hear and dispose of this appeal by hearing the argument of ld. Sr.DR and the material available on record. We found from perusal of record that there is delay of 219 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal for which, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit mentioning the fact as under: Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA1926/Chny/2025 S.G. Srinivasan Vs ITO  The appellant was under continuous medical treatment from the FY 2019 due to hyper tension, sleeplessness and other issues related to psychiatry further fell down while driving a two-wheeler due to giddiness and was hospitalised and on treatment and medication till date. Copies of the medical history is submitted herewith this application for the kind perusal and consideration of the Hon'ble Tribunal.  It is submitted that the appellant had engaged an accountant Mrs. Ganesh Priya who was entrusted with the job of operating the computer and she also had the log-in credentials for operating the income tax portal to monitor the communications from the department. Due to continuous illness, and personal family issues faced by her the accountant went to her native place in Walajapet Taluk, Vellore District for treatment and after considerable time, she informed that she is quitting the job. During the relevant period, the notices for hearing were posted by NFAC in the portal, which were not to the knowledge of the petitioner and an ex parte order was passed by the NFAC. The appellant came to know about the appellate order having been passed only after the Assessing officer issued a notice stating that the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) and requesting the appellant to pay the demand raised in the assessment order failing which necessary recovery proceedings would be initiated. Thereafter, the petitioner took steps to contact the chartered accountant in Chennai and handed over the appellate order for taking further action. The auditor drafted the appeal to be filed in the Appellate Tribunal and eventually the appeal was filed on 07.07.2025.  The petitioner submits that the delay in filing the appeal was neither willful nor wanton, but beyond the control of the assessee. If the delay is not condoned and the appeal decided on merits, the petitioner would be put to considerable hardship and injury. The condonation of delay and disposal of the appeal on merits would give an opportunity to the assessee to address the issue on merits and cancel the addition, which otherwise would be fastened on the assessee.  It is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 7 months and 7 days in filing the appeal for assessment year 2017-18, hear and dispose it off on merits and thus render justice. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA1926/Chny/2025 S.G. Srinivasan Vs ITO 3. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue on the application of condonation of delay, submitted that the Bench may take appropriate view as per law. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. On the issue of condonation of delay, we find that the assessee submitted in its affidavit that due to illness of the assessee as well as due to unawareness of the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not file appeal before the Tribunal within stipulated time. We agree with the contention made by the assessee in his affidavit about delayed filing of appeal, therefore considering the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay of 219 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and admit the same for hearing. 5. On merit of the case, the brief facts of the case are that the department received information from the system that the assessee Shri S.G. Srinivasan, Proprietor M/s Akash Cotton Yarn waste, No. 15, Venkatramana Bagavathar Street, Walajapet has made a case deposits of Rs. 80,48,900/- in State Bank of India, Tirupattur branch ad Rs. 13,86,000/- in State Bank of India, SME Branch, Walajapet totaling to Rs. 94,34,900/- during demonetization period from 09/11/2016 to 31/12/2016. However, the assessee did not file any return of income for the assessment year under consideration. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was, therefore, issued by the Assessing Officer to file a return disclosing true and correct income for the A.Y. 2017-18. Further, since no return was filed by the assessee and not made any compliance to the notices issued by the Assessing Office from time to time, Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA1926/Chny/2025 S.G. Srinivasan Vs ITO a summon was issued under Section 131 of the Act to the assessee to give explanation and produce the necessary evidence to explain the source of cash deposits. The assessee appeared and statement on oath was recorded from the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee filed return of income in response to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act on 11/09/2019 disclosing total taxable income of Rs. 3,16,670/- after due date of filing the return of income, therefore, the return was treated as invalid return as per the provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer, thereafter passed assessment order on the basis of best judgment assessment and assessed the income at Rs. 2,49,744/- being 8% of the total turnover shown by the assessee. The Assessing Officer further added a sum of Rs. 13,96,300/- under Section 68 of the Act and taxed under Section 115BBE @ 60% for failure to explain the source of this cash deposit. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The assessee did not appear before the ld. CIT(A) to submit any submission or evidence before him during the course of appellate proceedings before him. 7. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), this appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal. During the appellate proceedings before us, the assessee prayed that one more opportunity may kindly be given to the assessee so that it explained its case before the ld. CIT(A). 8. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA1926/Chny/2025 S.G. Srinivasan Vs ITO 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the fact that the assessee did not appear before the ld. CIT(A) to substantiate its claim, therefore, considering the prayer of the assessee, we restore the issue back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with the undertaking from the assessee that he will make all necessary compliance before the ld. CIT(A) and provide all necessary documents to substantiate his claim. Before deciding the issue, the assessee shall be given reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only. 10. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 26/09/2025 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard File By order Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Chennai Printed from counselvise.com "