GURUMOORTHY KARTHIK,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTL. TAX. WARD -1(2), CHENNAI

Brief facts of the case that the appellant is an individual and a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) during the previous year relevant to the AY 2019-20. In fact, the assessee was an NRI right from the year 2010 and in the previous year relevant to the AY 2019-20, he was a citizen of United Kingdom UK) and was also on Overseas Citizen of India (OCI). From his salary income earned in UK, the appellant purchased an immovable property at Saligramam, Chennai, jointly with his wife and a friend, S.Dhanalakshmi, for a total consideration of Rs.2,15,00,000/-. Thus, both (the appellant and his wife on one side and the friend, S.Dhanalakshmi, on the other side) owned 50% of the immovable property. The appellant included his wife in the sale deed for shagun purposes and the source for the wife was also only through the salary income of the appellant. The stamp duty (7%) and registration fee (2%) of the property worked out to Rs.15,05,000/- and Rs.4,30,000/-respectively. Thus, it may be seen that the total cost of the property was Rs.2,34,35,000/-. From the above narration and the sale deed (copy enclosed) itself, it may be seen that the appellant share towards purchase of property was Rs. 1,17,17,500/-. The source for this sum of Rs. 1,17,17,500/- is from the appellant bank account maintained with Bank of Baroda (BoB) and ICICI Bank. The details are as follows: Bank account Loan Account No. Date of debit in Sum paid to the Appellant’s share account from which Bank Account seller of the sum paid amount was paid to seller bank of Baroda 29900100000305 10.10.2018 4,80,000 4,80,000 (BoB), Vadapalani Branch, account in name of K. Mahalakshmi (wife of appellant) -do- -do- 24.10.2018 15,20,000 15,20,000 -do- -do- 02.11.2018 5,00,000 5,00,000 -do- -do- 10.01.2019 1,62,00,000 81,00,000 (Loan account jointly with Dhanalakshmi from DoB, Vadapalani Branch, the loand amount being Rs. 1,62,00,000) ICICI Bank account 154501001046 02.02.2019 3,00,000 3,00,000 in name of K.Mahalakshmi (wife of appellant) ICICI Bank account 24.10.2018 10,00,000 - in name of other co-owner ICICI Bank account 28.10.2018 10,00,000 - in name of other co-owner ICICI Bank account 01.12.2018 5,00,000 - in name of other co-owner Top-up Joan 17,00,000 8,50,000 obtained from BoB Total 2,32,00,000 1,17,50,000

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) came to be dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine as time barred by 491 by holding that he was not satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay in presenting appeal and confirmed the order of the 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 neither the Assessing Officer nor the Ld. CIT(A) afforded the assessee a proper and effective opportunity of being heard and that both the authorities proceeded to decide the matter ex parte. It was contended that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the issues on merits. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that one final opportunity be granted to the assessee to produce all relevant documents and evidences before the Ld. CIT(A.) for proper adjudication of the issues involved.

The ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, supported the order of the ld. CIT(E) and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

The ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

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. The assessee is directed to extend full cooperation and diligently participate in the appellate proceedings. It is made clear that in the event of failure on the part of the assessee to avail the opportunities so granted or to comply with the notices issued by the appellate authority, the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law on the basis of the material available on record.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on the 08th day of September, 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