VADIVEL CHANDRAN,CHENNAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MYSORE

ITA 1695/BANG/2025

AI Insights

Shri Vadivel Chandran appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had confirmed an addition of Rs. 32,50,000 to his income for the assessment year 2021-22 under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The CIT(A) upheld this addition after the assessee failed to respond to notices. The ITAT found that the notices were not sent to the correct email address as provided in Form 35, leading to the assessee's non-compliance. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, condoned the delay in filing, and directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the case after issuing proper notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781062 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REVENUE; GANESH R. GHALE; STANDING COUNSEL REVENUE
• Assessee Lawyers: G. BASKAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No.1695/Bang/2025 Assessment year : 2021-22 Shri Vadivel Chandran, No.2105, Tower 2, Trellis South Apartment, Arcot Road, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. PAN: ADWPV 9186F Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mysore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue. Date of hearing : 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025 O R D E R 1. This appeal is filed by Shri Vadivel Chandran (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2021-22 against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] dated 18.10.2024 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 17.12.2022 by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department [ld. AO] was dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1695/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 5 2. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is working in Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, who has purchased a property at Chennai on 4.12.2022 at a price of Rs.71,71,129. The source of above investment is said to be a loan of Rs.95 lakhs from ICICI Bank Ltd. sanctioned on 17.9.2019. It was also found that assessee has deposited cash in his bank account of a sum of Rs.32,50,000 with Bank of India on various dates at Sivagana Branch. The claim of the assessee is that on 17.1.2022 he received a sum of Rs.30 lakhs from his father, Mr. Sundrasan and Rs.2,50,000 from his mother, Umarani. The assessee has submitted the bank statement of his father wherein the AO found that his mother has also deposited the cash. On examination of the bank statement of father, the ld. AO noted that there is no cash withdrawal and therefore assessee was issued a questionnaire. The assessee changed the version of source of cash and submitted that the same is also on account of amount received on cancellation of the agreement for sale of the property. The ld. AO held that assessee has not provided complete details of the above sum deposited in cash and therefore addition was made u/s. 69 of the Act by assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 17.12.2022 determining the total income at Rs.47,31,350. 3. The assessee contested it by filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the addition of Rs.32,50,000. 3 notices were issued, but assessee did not respond to the same and therefore addition was confirmed and appeal of the assessee was dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held that assessee has not submitted wherefrom he has got Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1695/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 5 cash of Rs.32,50,000 and therefore the ld. AO has correctly made the addition u/.s 69 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the same, assessee has preferred the appeal before me which is late by 210 days. 5. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and also supported it with Affidavit. The main contention of the assessee is that 3 notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) for hearing u/s. 250 of the Act were not served on the email id of the assessee and he was completely unaware about such hearing. Further the appellate order sent by the ld. CIT(A) is also on the email id of the CA in Karaikudi, whereas in Form 35 assessee has stated a different email id. On 14.7.2025 he approached the CA for filing return of income for AY 2025-26 and on verification of the portal, it was found that there is an appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) also and therefore the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition deserves to be challenged. This caused the delay in filing of the appeal. 6. Thus, though the order of the ld. CIT(A) is dated 18.10.2024 and if the same is considered to be as the date of receipt of order, appeal should have been filed on or before 31.12.2024, but is filed on 29.7.2025, has caused the delay. It was submitted that delay is for sufficient cause and therefore needs to be condoned. 7. The ld. AR reiterated the same submissions and requested for condonation of delay. The ld. DR vehemently opposed the prayer for Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1695/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 5 condonation of delay stating that there is no sufficient cause shown by the assessee. 8. I have carefully considered the reasons for the delay in fling of the appeal. I find that in Form 35 assessee has mentioned the email address as [e-mail] and also requested for sending all the notices etc. at para 17. However, it is claimed that the notices were sent to the assessee at [e-mail] . I am not in a position to know that why notices were sent to that email id, when the assessee has filed a different email id in Form 35. Thus, it is apparent that the notices and the order is sent by the ld. CIT(A) at email id which is not mentioned in Form 35. When the assessee has come to know the passing of the appellate order only when he came to know about his filing of return of income that on the portal there are certain orders which need to be addressed to. Immediately appeal is filed. Though in the appellate order the date of issue of the order is stated to be 18.10.2024, but in fact the said order has come to the notice of the assessee only in the month of July, 2025 and appeal was filed on 29.7.2025. No contrary evidence were shown by the Revenue that such appellate order was served to the assessee on the correct email address on 18.10.2024. Therefore I find that the delay of 210 days in filing the appeal is due to sufficient cause and hence the same is condoned and appeal is admitted. 9. On the merits of the case, I find that the notice sent by the ld. CIT(A) are not at the correct email address, all the 3 notices were not received Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1695/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 5 by the assessee. This is the reason for non-compliance by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). When the assessee has attended and complied with each and every notice issued by the AO, I do not find that the assessee is negligent. As the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on the merits after hearing the assessee, I restore the whole appeal back to the file of ld. CIT(A) with a direction to issue notices to the assessee at the correct email id mentioned in Form 35 or if there is a change in the address, the assessee must immediately intimate on the portal and also to the ld. CIT(A). The notices may be sent to that address and appeal of the assessee may be decided after granting opportunity of hearing by the ld. CIT(A). ld. CIT (A) may decide the issue afresh. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 23rd day of October, 2025. Sd/- ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI ) VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 23rd October, 2025. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "