SAPPANI MATHU,MADURAI vs. CIT, MADURAI, MADUARI

Brief facts of the case are that though assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 28,80,800/- & Rs. 50,06,000/- in the bank of City Union Bank Limited and Indian Bank, but he did not file the return of income for A.Y 2020-21. In the absence of response to the notice issued u/S 144 of the Act, the AO assessed the income of Rs. 85,24,406/- and treated it as unexplained money u/s 59A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act.

Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the case by the assessee and also remain non-complaint in providing material evidence supporting the claims and confirmed the order of the assessment order of AO. Now revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Being further aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. Authorised Representative ("Ld. AR") submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assesse and passed ex-parte order without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the issues on merits. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had sent the impugned notice on wrong email address which was not operating by the assessee due to assessee could not respond of the notice in time. The Ld. AR,

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident that both the assessment order as well as the appellate order have been passed ex parte. The record indicates that the assessee was not afforded an effective and meaningful opportunity of being heard during the appellate proceedings. It is a settled principle of law that adherence to the principles of natural justice is a condition precedent to any quasi-judicial adjudication and that every litigant must be afforded a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case before an adverse order is passed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the impugned appellate order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo in accordance with law, after affording the assessee an adequate and effective opportunity of being heard and after considering such submissions and evidences as may be placed on record in support of his claim. 2026 in Chennai. (इंतूरी रामा राव) (मनु कुमार िग"र) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद*य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यक सद*य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे"नई/Chennai, +दनांक/Dated: 08th September 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS

""थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड"फाईल/GF