SELVAN KARTHIK DINDIGUL,DINDIGUL V. ITO WARD-1, DINDIGUL, DINDIGUL

ITA 4054/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves three appeals by the assessee, Selvam Karthik, against the orders of the CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeals were initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a significant delay in filing, which the CIT(A) did not condone. The Tribunal found that the delay was caused by a technical glitch related to the mismatch of the appellant's name in Aadhar and PAN, preventing the generation of an OTP required for uploading the appeal. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in M.Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V.Laxmi Narain Rao, held that the uncontroverted affidavit of the appellant constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847428 (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: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: 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: G. BASKAR; G. AKASH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Reassessment proceedings; Onus to prove; Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice; Validity of assessment; Right to appeal
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1)

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 Nos.4052, 4053 & 4054/CHNY/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Selvam Karthik, No.1/299, Malligai Nagar, Opp.EB Office, Ponnagaram Adianoothu, Dindigul – 624002. V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dindigul. PAN: DAAPK4175F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Mr. G.Baskar – Advocate & Mr. G.Akash – Advocate 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 : These three appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], Delhi all dated 27.11.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2015-16. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4052, 4053 & 4054/CHNY/2025 [A] 2 2. Since, the identical facts and issues are involved in these three appeals, we proceed to dispose the same vide this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant in ITA No.4052/Chny/2025 for Assessment Year 2015-16 are stated herein. 4. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No.4052/Chny/2025: “1.1 The CIT(A) erred in confirming the best judgment assessment after issuing only one hearing notice and without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard 1.2 The CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by disposing of the appeal without granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing despite the Appellant having sought adjournment 2. RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT ILLEGAL 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred by mechanically rejecting the petition for condonation of delay u/s 249(3) of the Act, without appreciating the facts of the case, thereby defeating the Appellant's statutory right of appeal and the interests of substantial justice. 2.2 The CIT(A) erred in placing excessive reliance on judicial precedents on limitation while ignoring the settled principle that procedural laws are handmaids of justice and should not be applied to shut the doors of adjudication on merits 2.3 The CIT(A), having been aware that serious jurisdictional issues relating to the validity of reassessment were raised, ought to have adjudicated the same instead of dismissing the appeal in limine on limitation. 3. ON JURISDICTION: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4052, 4053 & 4054/CHNY/2025 [A] 3 3.1 The CIT(A) erred in law in sustaining the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act when the assumption of jurisdiction itself was invalid and contrary to the statutory mandate of Section 151A of the Act. 3.2 The CIT(A) erred in law in sustaining the reassessment proceedings, as the order u/s 148A(d) and the consequential notice u/s 148 were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in violation of Section 151A of the Act and the mandatory Faceless Reassessment Scherte 3.3 The CIT(A) having been aware that the validity of assessment is under challenge, ought to have adjudicated and allowed the grounds relating to concurrent junsdiction of JAO 4. ON MERITS 41 The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition made u/s 69A of the Act by mechanically treating the cash deposits as unexplained money. solely on the basis of non-response, without any independent enquiry or examination of the nature of transactions. 42 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessment was completed ex parte u/s 144 of the Act and that mere bank deposits, in the absence of any incriminating material or evidence, cannot be treated as income chargeable u/s 69A of the Act 4.3 The CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the application of Section 115BBE of the Act without first establishing, on the basis of material on record, that the deposits constituted unexplained income within the meaning of Section 69A 4.4 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the burden to prove that a receipt constitutes taxable income rests on the Revenue, which burden has not been discharged in the present case 5 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.” 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that appellant is an Individual. No regular return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act, was filed by the appellant for Assessment Year 2015-16. Based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits of Rs.55,70,000/- in a bank account maintained with The Karur Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4052, 4053 & 4054/CHNY/2025 [A] 4 Vysya Bank Ltd, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer formed an opinion that the income got escaped assessment from tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s.148 was issued on 10.04.2022 after complying with the procedure laid down u/s.148A of the Act. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s.148 of the Act, nor the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, dated 23.01.2024. 6. In the circumstances, the e-Assessment Unit of the Department had proceeded with framing of best judgment assessment vide order dated 23.03.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the at a total income of Rs.58,23,000/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of aggregate of cash deposits in the bank account of Rs.55,70,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and applied the tax rate prescribed u/s.115BBE of the Act. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 520 days. The ld.CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay and accordingly, dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4052, 4053 & 4054/CHNY/2025 [A] 5 8. Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 9. 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 that fact appeal could not be uploaded due to technical glitch on account of mis- match of the name of the appellant in Aadhar and PAN. Consequently, the PAN and Aadhar were not linked, as a result of which the OTP was not generated to upload the appeal. 10. The averments made in the Affidavit seeking the condonation of delay in filing appeal before us remains uncontroverted by the ld.Sr.DR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court 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, in our considered opinion since the appellant prevented from filing of appeal for the reasons which are beyond his control, this would constitute a reasonable cause for delay. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4052, 4053 & 4054/CHNY/2025 [A] 6 11. 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. 12. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No.4052/CHNY/2025 stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. ITA Nos.4053 & 4054/CHNY/2025 13. We find that the identical facts and issues are involved in assessee’s appeals bearing Appeals Nos.4053 and 4054/Chny/2025 for A.Y 201516 also. Accordingly, our findings given above in Appeal No.4052/Chny/2025 for A.Y 2015-16 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeals ITA No.4053 & 4054/Chny/2025 for A.Y 2015-16. Therefore, for the similar reasons stated therein, the appeals ITA No.4053 & 4054/Chny/2025 for A.Y 2015- 16 are remit the matter back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.4052, 4053 & 4054/CHNY/2025 [A] 7 issues in appeal on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 14. In the result, above three appeals filed by the Assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (INTURI RAMA RAO) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; Ǒदनांक / 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 "