Muniyappa Govindraj, KGF

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Muniyappa Govindraj, filed his income tax return electronically on 5.10.2018 declaring an income of Rs.9,75,300/-. The case was picked up for limited scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer (AO) called for documents regarding the source of cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period. The assessee failed to respond to any notices from the AO, leading to an ex-parte order where the AO added Rs.10,59,61,602/- to the returned income. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, resulting in the CIT(A) affirming the AO's order. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), with a 15-day delay in filing, which was condoned by the Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal
• 2. Validity of the ex-parte order passed by the AO

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Murti Devi v. Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench ‘SMC’, New Delhi benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Saya Buildcon Consortium Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT

  Delhi Bench ‘F’, New Delhi benchAY 2020-21Allowed

• Amit Aggarwal vs Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench ‘F’, New Delhi benchAY 2020-21Allowed

• Subhash Chander Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Rohtak, Haryana

• Ved Pal Bhatia Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-62(1) and CIT(Appeals), Delhi/national Faceless Appeal Centre, Income Tax Department

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Vakil Housing Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(1), New Delhi

  Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi benchAY 2018-19Allowed