Yoosuf Rahuman Mohamed Ibrahim Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Limitation Runs from Date of Knowledge – Chennai ITAT Sets Aside CIT(A)’s Delay Dismissal & Restores Cash Deposit Appeal
The Chennai ITAT (C Bench) partly allowed the appeals of Yoosuf Rahuman Mohamed Ibrahim (AY 2018-19) and held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground of delay, without correctly reckoning the limitation period. One appeal was dismissed as duplicate, while the substantive appeal was restored.
The AO had completed a best-judgment assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B, making additions towards cash deposits and bank credits after alleged non-compliance with notices. The CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the appeal holding it to be time-barred.
Before the Tribunal, the Assessee demonstrated that the assessment order along with notice of demand was served only on 05.06.2024, and the appeal was filed on 19.06.2024. The ITAT held that limitation must be computed from the date of service/knowledge of the order, and not from an assumed earlier date. In the absence of contrary evidence, the Assessee’s plea was accepted.
Accordingly, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication on merits, directing that reasonable opportunity of hearing be granted. The appeal was thus partly allowed for statistical purposes
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
These two appeals filed by the assessee – Yoosuf Rahuman Mohamed Ibrahim against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) / NFAC, [‘CIT(A)’ in short], Delhi dated 17.09.2025 for AY-2018-19.
ITA No.2946/Chny/2025
2.0 The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn as the appeal is duplicate of appeal bearing ITA No.2947/Chny/2025.
ITA No.2947/Chny/2025
3.0 Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular return of income under the provisions of the 139 of the Act 1961 was filed for the assessment year 2017-18. However, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits in the bank account aggregating to Rs.1,03,75,564, the assessing officer formed an opinion that income escaped assessment from tax. The assessing officer after complying with procedure laid down u/s 148A of the Act, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 06.04.2022. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s 148 nor complied with the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the income tax act 1961. In the circumstances, the AO completed best judgement assessment vide order dated 21.11.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs.1,22,58,920/-. While doing so, the AO treated the cash deposits in the bank account of Rs.93,04,480/- and the credits into the bank account of Rs.25,35,340 as unexplained money of the appellant and made the addition to the returned income.
