RAJU RAVI,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2, NAMAKKAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2667/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 September 2026AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's lack of knowledge and reliance on a professional who was ill. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file income tax returns for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, leading to ex-parte assessment orders based on bank deposits. The assessee also failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals and non-appearance before lower authorities can be excused due to the assessee's lack of knowledge and professional's ill health. Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 20.07.2026Pronounced: 01.09.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्याययर्क सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA Nos.2666 & 2667/CHNY/2026 (ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2012-13) Raju Ravi, The Income Tax Officer, Door No 7/20, Aandipalayam, vs. Ward-2, Selur PO, Paramathi Velur Taluk, Namakkal. Namakkal– 637 213. [PAN:AUQPR-8053-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCA (Virtual) प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl. CIT. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.07.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 01.09.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER S.R.RAGHUNATHA, AM:

These appeals of the assessee are filed against the separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short ‘ld.CIT(A)’) for the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13, vide both the orders dated 29.01.2025 and 30.01.2025 respectively against the assessment orders passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2,

:-2-: ITA Nos. 2666 & 2667/Chny/2026

Namakkal, (in short “the AO") u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 19.11.2019 and 29.09.2021 respectively. 2. At the threshold, we observe that there is a delay of 401 days in the filing of the present appeals by the assessee. The assessee has furnished an affidavit explaining that the assessee has studied only up to the 10th standard and has no knowledge of income tax-related compliances and the assessee fully relied on Mr.Rajendran for professional guidance, but he failed to take timely action due to a lack of proper professional knowledge and ill health. Further, the assessee contacted Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, CA for proper professional guidance and he filed the appeals before ITAT, Chennai on 06.05.2026. Upon perusal of the affidavit and after affording due opportunity of hearing from both parties, we are satisfied that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause for not presenting the appeal within the statutory period prescribed under law. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file his return of income for A.Y.2011-12 and A.Y.2012-13. Based on the information available with the department, the assessee made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.12,21,400/- for A.Y.2011-12 and amounting to the tune of Rs.22,94,901/- for A.Y.2012-13 into his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act, accordingly a notice u/s.148 of the Act and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. In response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee failed to file the return of income for A.Y.2011-12 and A.Y.2012-13. Since the assessee chose to be silent and failed to respond any of the notices, the AO concluded the assessment proceedings by passing separate orders u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 19.11.2019 and 29.09.2021 respectively by making an addition of Rs.12,21,400/- for A.Y 2011-

:-3-: ITA Nos. 2666 & 2667/Chny/2026

12 and amounting to the tune of Rs.22,94,901/- for A.Y. 2012-13 as undisclosed income u/s.69A of the Act.

4.

Aggrieved by the orders of the AO, the assessee preferred two separate appeals before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 02.02.2022.

5.

At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided three and four opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 8 and paragraph 7 of the ld.CIT(A) orders to support the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y.2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. However, the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices and hence, the ld.CIT(A) passed separate orders dated 29.01.2025 and 30.01.2025 respectively by confirming the orders of the AO.

The ld.AR submitted that the assessee has studied only up to the 10th 6. standard and has no knowledge of income tax-related compliances and the assessee fully relied on Mr. Rajendran for professional guidance, but he failed to take timely action due to a lack of proper professional knowledge and undergone heart surgery and hence the assessee was not aware of the impugned order issued by the ld.CIT(A) and became aware of the impugned order passed by the ld.CIT(A) only after recovering from the above ailment and hence he could not participate and submit the valid evidence before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld.CIT(A). In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed to set aside the orders of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of Assessing Officer. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment proceedings effectively.

7.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that both the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to appear before them. However, the

:-4-: ITA Nos. 2666 & 2667/Chny/2026

assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

8.

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed exparte orders by considering the information available with the department and the same have been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to non-participation of the assessee. Since the assessee has failed to participate before the AO as well as the ld.CIT(A), we levy the cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.5,000/- for each appeal) to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and the assessee shall satisfy the payment of cost before the authorities.

9.

In view of the above and to meet the ends of justice we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO and direct the AO to denovo frame the assessment orders in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

10.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01st September, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी वर्की ) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (ABY T VARKEY) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) न्याययर्क सदस्य/Judicial Member लेखासदस्य/Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai,

:-5-: ITA Nos. 2666 & 2667/Chny/2026

दिन ांक/Dated, the 01st September, 2026 Devadas आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अपील र्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुक्त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि/DR 5. ग र्ड फ ईल/GF Digitally signed by DEVADAS DEVADAS GOPALANACHARY GOPALANACHARY Date: 2026.09.03 10:30:19 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →