VIJAYASEKAR JEAYANTHI,COIMBATORE V. ITO, NCQ-2(1), COIMBATORE

ITA 2683/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Vijayasekar Jeayanthi, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) setting aside the assessment order for the assessment year 2017-18. The original assessment had added Rs.50,45,000 as unexplained money due to unaccounted cash deposits during the demonetization period. The CIT(A) set aside this order, directing a fresh assessment, which the assessee contested at the Tribunal, arguing that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate on the legal grounds raised. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, supporting the CIT(A)'s decision for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833426 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: A. ARJUNRAJ
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause
• Section: 139

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘बी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी इंटूरȣ रामा राव, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2683/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Vijayasekar Jeayanthi, 84, Tagore Street, Sivanandha Colony, Coimbatore -641 012. PAN: ADCPJ 7575Q Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), Coimbatore (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri A. Arjun Raj, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (herein after the ‘CIT(A)’) dated 12.02.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2683/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. There is delay of 152 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay of 152 days by stating as under:- 1. The CIT(A), NFAC Delhi has passed order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act on 12.02.2025 setting aside the order of the Assessing officer stating as below: \"In view of these reply, I find that for sake of justice it is necessary to examine the submission of the appellant. All these facts were not available with the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. I, therefore set aside (under the provisions of proviso to Section 251(1)(a) of the Act effective from 01.10.2024) the assessment order dated 10.12.2019 for A.Y. 2017-18 in this case and direct the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment afresh after giving the appellant opportunity of being heard.\" 2. The appellant is not aware of the Income Tax provisions and has to depend upon her tax consultant for proper advise on the Tax matter. 3. Immediately after receipt of the above order on 12.02.2025, the same was given to the tax consultant for his opinion. 4. The tax consultant suggested for no appeal to be filed before ITAT but advised to wait for the fresh assessment order to be passed by the Assessing Officer. 5. The appellant received a letter dtd. 19.09.2025 from National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department intimating her assessment for assessment year 2017-18 has been selected for the purpose of faceless assessment. 6. When the same is shown to Senior Chartered Accountant at Coimbatore Sri CA.A.Arjunaraj FCA on 24.09.2025 he suggested that legal issues which goes to the root of the matter including non issue of 143(2) notice by the AO were taken before CIT(A) and those issues should have been adjudicated by CIT(A) before remanding the issue of merits to the AO and hence it is advisable to file appeal before the honourable Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2683/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: 7. Immediately the appeal fees was paid on 27.09.2025 and appeal is filed. 8. The delay is only because of the not correct advise given by the tax consultant and there is no wilful default or any contumacious disregard of any obligation cast on the appellant. The assesse has not gained anything by delaying the filing of the appeal. 9. There is no wilful default or any contumacious disregard of any obligation cast on the appellants. 10. In the circumstances it is prayed to condone the delay of 170 days in presenting the appeal and render justice. 3. The Ld.DR on the other hand seriously opposed the condonation of delay. On going through the reasons stated, we are of the considered view that the reasons stated by the assessee constitute a reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 152 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 2017-18, no regular return of income under the provisions of section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) was filed. Based on the information available with the Department that assessee made cash deposits during the demonetization period in Specified Bank Notes of Rs.98,50,500/-, the AO formed opinion that income escaped Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2683/Chny/2025 :- 4 -: assessment of tax. Therefore, the AO issued notice u/s.142(1) of the Act on 08.12.2017 calling upon the assessee to file the return of income. The assessee neither complied with the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, however assessee had filed information called for during the course of assessment proceedings. Since the assessee was unable to explain the source of cash deposit to the tune of Rs.50,45,000/-, the AO made addition of Rs.50,45,000/- as unexplained money of the assessee vide order dated 10.12.2019 passed u/s.144 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order set aside the assessment order for fresh assessment in accordance with law. 6. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us in the preset appeal. It is submitted that the CIT(A) without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on points of law raised by the assessee, merely set aside the entire assessment and the AO also passed order in total disregard to the submissions made before the AO. 7. On the other hand, the Ld.Senior DR opposed the above submission and submitted that no interference by this Tribunal is required as the order passed by the CIT(A) is reasonable. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2683/Chny/2025 :- 5 -: 8. We heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the assessment order, it would reveal that the AO made addition of Rs.50,45,000/- for the alleged failure of the assessee to explain the cash deposits treating it as unexplained money of the assessee. However, it is the contention of the assessee that AO made additions in utter disregard of the submissions made before him. Considering these submissions, the CIT(A) had set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The contentions of the assessee is that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal which are purely legal in nature. We find from the impugned order that the CIT(A) disposed of all the said grounds of appeal raised on the legal issues vide page 5 of his order. It is apparent from reading of the impugned order that the assessee filed some additional evidence in support of the grounds of appeal raised before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A) had rightly set aside the assessment order and ordered fresh assessment. The course adopted by the CIT(A) is reasonable and requires no interference by the Tribunal. Thus, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2683/Chny/2025 :- 6 -: 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 5th February, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT (इंटूरȣ रामा राव) (INTURI RAMA RAO) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 5th February, 2026 RSR आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Coimbatore 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "