MARIMUTHU MANIKANDAN,COIMBATORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 223/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 September 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the violation of natural justice by the CIT(A) and the assessee's plea for another opportunity, decided to remit the appeal back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to call for necessary details and a remand report to decide the issue afresh.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in money lending, filed a return of income. The AO reopened the assessment due to substantial financial transactions not commensurate with declared income. The AO made an addition of Rs. 63,89,930/- as business income after allowing 10% for expenses, as the assessee could not furnish complete details.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A), and if the AO's addition was justified without proper appreciation of furnished details.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & MS. PADMAVATHY.S

For Respondent: Ms. Samatha M.Mullamudi, JCIT

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 18.11.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.

2.

The assessee is an individual and engaged in money lending business. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2020-21 on 10.01.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 8,12,340/-. Based on the information that the

ITA No.223/Chny/2026 Marimuthu Manikandan :- 2 -:

assessee had substantial financial transactions which is not commensurate with the income declared by the assessee, the A.O reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The AO called on the assessee to furnish various details. Since the assessee could not submit the complete details as called for by the AO, the A.O made an addition of Rs. 63,89,930/- towards business income of the assessee. The AO while doing so has considered the entire receipts after allowing 10% towards expenses. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A) and therefore, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

3.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee has provided most of the details called for by the A.O and the assessee could not furnish only certain details. The Ld. AR further submitted that the AO has not properly appreciated the details furnished but has made an adhoc disallowance of expenditure. The Ld. AR also submitted that the CIT(A) issued only two notices within a period of fifteen days and has completed the appellate proceedings and therefore there is violation of natural justice. The Ld. AR accordingly argued that the assessee was not given proper opportunity of being heard and prayed for one more opportunity. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice and fair play to represent the case properly by producing the required details. Accordingly, we remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with law. The

ITA No.223/Chny/2026 Marimuthu Manikandan :- 3 -:

CIT(A) is further directed to call for remand report as may be required based on the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The assessee is directed to submit the necessary details and cooperate with the proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

4.

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

Order pronounced on 03rd day of September, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वक�) (पदमावती यस) (ABY. T. Varkey) (Padmavathy.S) लेखा सद�य /Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 03rd September, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S EJTADA Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA आदेश क� ��त!ल"प अ#े"षत/Copy to: DURGA NARESH 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant Date: 2026.09.04 NARESH 2. ��थ�/Respondent 17:47:44 +05'30' 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →