AKBARALI NOORDEEN,ARANTHANGI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PUDUKOTTAI., PUDUKOTTAI

Brief facts of the case are as follows:- For AY 2018-19, the assessee did not file any return of income. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 01.04.2022 in order to examine the source of cash deposits made in the current account maintained with Lakshmi Vilas Bank at Rs.1,47,25,490/-. Since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, a show-cause notice was issued on 19.12.2023, followed by a final show-cause notice dated 20.01.2024. In the absence of any response, the AO completed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 18.03.2024, making addition of Rs.1,47,25,490/- u/s. 69A of the Act.

Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the FAA. Before the FAA, three notices were issued on 06.10.2025, 07.11.2025 and 18.12.2025. In response to the same, assessee did not file any representation. Consequently, based on statement of facts mentioned in Form-35, the FAA adjudicated the appeal against the assessee.

Aggrieved, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds raised before the Tribunal read as follows:

The CIT(A) ought to have provided the Appellant with sufficient opportunity of being heard.

The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessing officer had erroneously assumed jurisdiction to initiate the reassessment proceedings particularly when the preconditions contemplated in the Act are not fulfilled.

The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessing officer failed to obtain approval from the competent authority specified in section 151(ii) of the Act.

The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act without furnishing or circulating the mandatory approval obtained under section 151, thereby vitiating the reassessment proceedings as being contrary to statutory requirements.

The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessing officer failed to grant 7 clear days as mandated in section 148A(b) of the Act to enable the Appellant to file his response. Therefore, proceedings initiated and completed by violating the mandatory requirement contemplated in section 148A(b) of the Act is liable to be vitiated.

The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer under section 69A of the Act without appreciating that the implication of section 69A of the Act will not apply to facts and circumstances of the present case.

The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,47,25,490/- made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act, treating the entire cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained money, without appreciating that the said deposits represented sale proceeds of the appellant's business.

The CIT(A) erred in disregarding the Trading and Profit & Loss Account filed by the appellant, establishing the source of deposits.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”

The Ld.AR relied on the above grounds.

The Ld.DR supported the orders of the AO and the FAA.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceedings before the AO and the FAA remained exparte as the assessee did not respond to notices issued. The Ld.AR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.