SANKAR,DHARMAPURI V. ITO, WARD-1, DHARMAPURI

ITA 4033/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the appellant, Sankar, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which sustained additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding unexplained cash deposits and unreported salary income for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The AO had issued notices under sections 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceeded with a best judgment assessment under section 144 due to non-compliance by the appellant. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing a delay of 161 days in filing the appeal, which the appellant sought to condone, attributing it to lack of professional guidance and reliance on his accountant. The Tribunal, referencing the case of M.Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V.Laxmi Narain Rao, held that the uncontroverted affidavit of the appellant should be accepted, leading to the remand of the case for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 846001 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Chennai
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Aasife Biriyani Private Limited vs. ITO in ITA No. 2460/Chny/2024, M.Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V.Laxmi Narain Rao AIR 1973 SC 627
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V ASWATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: T.S.LAKSHMI VENKATARAMAN VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained investment; Salary income
• Section: 147; 144; 139; 15

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”डी” Ɋायपीठ चेɄई मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCHES “D” :: CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.4033/CHNY/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sankar, 1-364, Theerthamalai, Harur Tk, Dharmapuri, Tamilnadu – 636906 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dharmapuri. PAN: GBVPS8787Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Mr. T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman–CA(Virtual) Revenue by Ms. V Aswathy – JCIT Date of hearing 17/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 25/03/2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], Delhi passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2019-20 dated 01.12.2025. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4033/CHNY/2025 [A] 2 2. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of Commissioner of Income T (Appeals) NFAC dated 01.12.2025 is opposed to the facts of the case and is not legally maintainable. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the first appellate authority is not justified in sustaining the addition made by the AO where the notice u's 148 and order u's 148A(d) 30.03.2023 has been issued by JAO and not by FAO. The action of the AO is fatal to assesment and the entire order needs to be quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the first appellate authority is not justified in sustaining the addition made by the AO, where the CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 161 days in filing the appeal before him. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the first appellate authority is not justified in sustaining the addition made by the AO, where an amount of Rs.13,49,500/- being cash deposited in the bank account has been added to the income of the appellant in terms of section 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. The assessee has adequate source of evidence for making and also filed submission before the CIT(A) 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the first appellate authority is not justified in sustaining the addition made by the AO, where the AO made an addition of Rs.2.93.013-as unreported salary income as per section 15 of the income tax act. The assessee has accountabile sources for receipt of above salary and the same is added back as unreported income is not justified. The assessee has adequate source of evidence for making and also filed submimion before the CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4033/CHNY/2025 [A] 3 6. The assessment has been completed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act by order dated 01.12.2023. First appeal has been dismissed for delay in filing the appeal before him. In view of the above facts appeal filing fee of Rs.500 is paid. In connection with the payment of the above filling fee, reliance is placed on the order of ITAT Chennai, 'B' Bench, in the case of Aasife Biriyani Private Limited vs. ITO in ITA No. 2460/Chny/2024 by order dated 10.12.2024. 7. In view of the above grounds and other submissions to be made at the time of Appeal hearing, the order U/S 250 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC may be cancelled and justice rendered.” 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual. No regular Return of Income under the provisions of section 139 of the Act was filed for the A.Y.2019-20. Based on the information that the Appellant undertook the financial transaction in the nature of bank deposit in the bank account maintained with Central Bank of India, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer(JAO) formed an opinion that the income got escaped assessment from tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s.148 was issued on 08.03.2023 after duly complying with the procedure laid down u/s.148A of the Act. The appellant neither complied with the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, nor the notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act . In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer proceeded with framing best judgment assessment u/s.144 vide order dated Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4033/CHNY/2025 [A] 4 01.12.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs.16,42,925/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of cash deposits in the account maintained with Central Bank of India of Rs.13,49,500/- as unexplained investment of the appellant. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The ld.CIT(A), however dismissed appeal for non-prosecution. 4. On the other hand, ld.Departmental Representative relied on the orders of Lower Authorities. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 161 days in presenting the appeal before ld.CIT(A). The appellant had filed an Affidavit seeking for the condonation of delay on the ground that appellant has no knowledge of Income Tax act and allied compliances. The delay occurred due to the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4033/CHNY/2025 [A] 5 termination of the employee who used to look after the Income Tax notices. The ld.AR further submitted that appellant is lack of proper professional guidance and reliance was fully placed on his Accountant. However, the ld.CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay and accordingly, dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay. 7. The issue in the present appeal is whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in refusing the condonation of delay. Admittedly, the appellant filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay. The appellant had explained that the delay had occurred due to lack of proper professional guidance and reliance was fully placed on his Accountant. However, the Chartered Accountant had failed to enumerate the factual position in detail before the First Appellant Authority for condoning the delay. 7. The averments made in the Affidavit seeking the condonation of delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A), remain uncontroverted by the learned ld.CIT(A). In the absence of any material to the contrary, the averments made in the affidavit cannot be brushed aside. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4033/CHNY/2025 [A] 6 8. In the case of M.Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V.Laxmi Narain Rao AIR 1973 SC 627, it was held that an uncontroverted affidavit shall be taken as an affidavit on fact. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that the ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits. In the circumstances, we remit the matter back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of the issues in appeal on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (INTURI RAMA RAO) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; िदनांक / Dated : 25th March, 2026 SGR, Sr.PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem. 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “डी” बɅच, चेÛनई / DR, ITAT Chennai. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. Printed from counselvise.com "