VENKATESAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-22(2), TAMBARAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1147/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 August 2026AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order, citing violation of natural justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the grounds of appeal on merits after hearing the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex parte by the CIT(A) for non-response to notices, which the assessee attributed to internet glitches. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 2,76,00,000/- under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without considering the assessee's explanation for non-response and whether natural justice was violated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Hearing: 14.07.2026Pronounced: 20.08.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 30.01.2026 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2013-14 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, Ld. AR of the assessee drawing our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has

ITA No. 1147/Chny/2026 (AY 2013-14) Venkatesan :: 2 :: passed an ex parte order qua the assessee, since the assessee didn’t respond to his several notices issued to him. According to the assessee, the assessee didn’t receive any of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) may be due to the glitches in the internet. Hence, he prayed for one more opportunity before the Ld. CIT(A).

3.

Per contra, the Ld. DR doesn’t want us to give one more opportunity to the assessee.

4.

Heard both the parties and perused the records. We note that the AO has made addition of Rs.2,76,00,000/- u/s.69A of the Act for AY 2013-14, since assessee failed to prove the nature and source of the cash deposits made in the bank account. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) finding that the assessee didn’t respond to his 9 notices has dismissed the appeal ex parte qua the assessee. The reason for non-response has been attributed to glitches in the internet which is a plausible reason. Since there is violation of natural justice, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to prove the nature and source of the deposits made in his bank account. And as noted the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the grounds of appeal raised by assessee on merits as required u/s.250(6) of the Act. In such circumstances, for the ends of justice and fair play, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on

ITA No. 1147/Chny/2026 (AY 2013-14) Venkatesan :: 3 :: merits after hearing the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be diligent and file relevant documents/written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue as per sub- section (6) of sec.250 of the Act. The assessee is directed to file the relevant documents to substantiate the nature and source of the deposit made in his account and the Ld. CIT(A) to pass order in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.

5.

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

Order pronounced on the 20th day of August, 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वक�) (गगन गोयल) (ABY T. VARKEY) (GAGAN GOYAL) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 20th August, 2026. YS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF YASHVI Digitally signed by YASHVIR R SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.09.03 15:08:25 -07'00'

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →