SELLAPPA KARUPPUSAMY,COIMBATORE V. ITO, WARD-1, POLLACHI

ITA 810/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sellappa Karuppusamy, the appellant, who faced an assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-compliance with notices and substantial cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer treated these deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The appellant's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a significant delay in filing, which the appellant attributed partly to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal found merit in giving the appellant another opportunity to present his case, emphasizing the need for justice and proper adjudication on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 653002 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2025
• 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: S. MATHANGI
• Section: 144; 142(1); 133(6)

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.810/Chny/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sellappa Karuppusamy, Thokkuthottam, Pollachi, Coimbatore 642 001. [PAN:BXIPK7422C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Pollachi. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. S. Mathangi, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17.06.2025 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 13.01.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee raised 4 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in rejecting the condonation petition and confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. I.T.A. No.810/Chny/25 2 3. We note that according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee made substantial cash deposits during demonetization period in his bank account maintained with the Federal Bank, Sulakkal Branch as well as South Indian Bank, Kovilpalayam Branch and did not file return of income for AY 2017-18. Thus, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 14.02.2018 requiring the assessee to file return of income, but, however, the assessee did not comply with the same. From the bank statements obtained under section 133(6) of the Act, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee made cash deposits of ₹.3,00,000/- and ₹.12,88,000/- respectively during demonetization period. The Assessing Officer found total credits as per the bank statements for the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 inclusive of the aforesaid cash deposits are ₹.13,77,454/- and ₹.95,45,675/- respectively put together to ₹.1,09,23,129/-. Since there was no response from the assessee against show cause notices, the Assessing Officer treated the entire credits of ₹.1,09,23,129/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act dated 23.11.2019. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with delay of 352 days in filing the appeal. Since the assessee could not I.T.A. No.810/Chny/25 3 file any supporting documentary evidence in support of the affidavit filed for condonation of delay, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. The ld. AR Ms. S. Mathangi, Advocate submits that out of the total delay of 352 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), a substantial period 269 days was during the Covid-19 period, which was covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement in suo moto Civil Write Petition No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022. She vehemently argued that the assessee being a senior citizen and causing prejudice to the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) should have adjudicated the issue on merits. The ld. AR prayed that, one more opportunity may be afforded to the assessee to pursue his case before the ld. CIT(A). 5. The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT opposed the same and drew our attention to the assessment order and argued that the assessee has not at all cooperated with the Department in furnishing the details as sought for through various notices/show-cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The ld. DR drew our attention to para 2.1 and 2.3 of the impugned order and argued that the ld. CIT(A) afforded ample opportunities to the assessee, but the assessee could not furnish supporting documentary evidence to prove the claim of continued losses of the assessee. She I.T.A. No.810/Chny/25 4 vehemently argued that costs may be imposed, in case this Tribunal affords an opportunity by remanding the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A). 6. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We note that the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act dated 23.11.2019. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee to various notices/show-cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A). We find the assistance of assessee is necessary in terms of additions involves under section 69A of the Act, further, we have also considered the submissions of the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue on merits. Taking into consideration of the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to afford one more opportunity and remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to condone the actual delay, if any, subject to the condition of payment of ₹.5,000/- in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, and the ld. CIT(A) shall satisfy the payment of cost and decide the issue on merits afresh after considering the written submissions/ documentary evidences as may be I.T.A. No.810/Chny/25 5 filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim. 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 17th June, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (AMITABH SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 17.06.2025 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. "