Poongavanam Elumalai Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-9(1), Chennai

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Poongavanam Elumalai, an individual, did not file a return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) received information that the assessee deposited cash worth Rs. 1,08,99,000/- into the bank account during the demonetization period and had contractual receipts of Rs.3,09,375/- and commission receipts of Rs. 25,425/-. The AO reopened the assessment and issued notices to the assessee to furnish details. Since the assessee did not respond, the AO completed the assessment under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making additions of Rs. 1,08,99,000/- under section 69A, estimated profit of Rs.27,21,432/-, and undisclosed commission income of Rs.25,425/-. Aggrieved by this, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which was dismissed due to delay. The assessee had filed a petition for condonation of delay citing medical issues.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Sheela Ladhania Vs ITO Ward-49(2), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-2018Dismissed

• Sanam Jignesh Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-19(3)(1)

• Anguraj Gajandhiran Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(6), Salem

• Vinod Kumar vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(2), Village Nagla, Sukhi Post, Firozabad. Mustafabad, Jasrana, Firozabad – 205 147 (Uttar Pradesh)

  Agra bench

• DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata Vs HKC Techind Private Limited

  Kolkata benchAY 2013-2014Dismissed

• Kottayil Athikatte Sukumaran Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ooty