SATYA SRINIVASA PRASAD BAGGU,CHENNAI V. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC

ITA 2939/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Satya Srinivasa Prasad Baggu, the appellant, who contested the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The original dispute arose from the assessee's cash deposits amounting to ₹14,60,000 during the demonetization period, which the Assessing Officer treated as unexplained under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to a significant delay in filing the appeal (841 days) without a condonation petition. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument of unintentional delay due to lack of access to email and remanded the case for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107568 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.ANITA
• Assessee Lawyers: SATHYA HARSHA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अिमताभ शुƑा, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2939/Chny/2024 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Satya Srinivasa Prasad Baggu, No. 30, 9th Street, Sakthi Nagar, Shashini Nivas, Kolathur, Chennai 600 099. [PAN:AJEPB0755C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 17(7), Chennai. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Sathya Harsha, C.A. ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. I.T.A. No.2939/Chny/24 2 2. The assessee raised 4 grounds in his appeal and mainly challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning delay in filing the appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of ₹.5,11,000/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny by CASS for cash deposit during demonetization period. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee made cash deposit of ₹.14,60,000/-. Against statutory notices, the assessee has submitted that the said money (cash in hand) belonging to him as past year savings. However, the assessee has not produced any material evidence in support of his claim. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] in the hands of the assessee and added to the returned income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine since assessee could not file any petition for condonation of delay in support of an affidavit by furnishing reasonable cause for the delay of 841 days in filing the appeal. I.T.A. No.2939/Chny/24 3 4. The ld. AR Shri Sathya Harsha, C.A. submits that the assessee, being a normal salaried individual without having much knowledge about the income tax, law, provisions and the consequences and without having an habit or practice of checking the email, he missed out to get access to the hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). He further submits that non response to the notices is purely due to non- checking of email and it was not intentional or voluntary. Thus, the ld. AR prayed that one more opportunity may be afforded to the assessee for filing condonation petition before the ld. CIT(A) and to pursue his case. 5. The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT opposed the same and drew our attention to para 3.3 of the impugned order and argues that the ld. CIT(A) has given ample of opportunities to the assessee, but, it was not availed. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to afford an opportunity to the assessee for filing condonation petition in support of an affidavit for the delay of 841 days. The ld. CIT(A) shall I.T.A. No.2939/Chny/24 4 consider the same and condone the delay. The ld. CIT(A) shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 23rd January, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (AMITABH SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 23.01.2025 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF. "