VADIVELU SELVARANI,CUDDALORE vs. ITO, CUDDALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2225/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 August 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after calling for necessary details and a remand report.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated cash deposits of Rs. 20,25,000/- and a bank balance of Rs. 91,728/- as unexplained money under Section 69A. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) provided adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee before dismissing the appeal ex-parte. Whether the cash deposits and bank balance are unexplained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,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: Smt. Samatha Mullamudi, Addl. CIT

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), Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Ludhiana (in short "FAA") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 08.01.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.

2.

The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income. The AO noticed that during the year under consideration the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 20,25,000/- into the savings bank account. Since the assessee did not file the return of income, the A.O reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee in response to notice u/s. 148

ITA No.2225/Chny/2026 Vadivelu Selvarani

:- 2 -:

of the Act filed the return of income on 09.11.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 2,05,396/-. The assessee submitted before the AO that the cash deposit is from the accumulated cash in hand. The AO however did not accept the submissions stating that the assessee did not produce any evidence nor did the assessee filed the wealth tax return. The AO therefore treated the entire cash deposited as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The AO also treated the bank balance of Rs.91,728/- as unexplained money and made addition u/s. 69A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) and therefore the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

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 filed the appeal before the CIT(A) on 16.02.2020 and the CIT(A) did not issue any notice to the assessee until 04.12.2025. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) within a period of 26 days issued four notices and passed the order ex-parte. Accordingly, the Ld. AR submitted that proper opportunity of hearing was not given by the CIT(A). It is also submitted that the assessee being a housewife is not aware of income tax proceedings and is completely dependent on the tax consultant who did not provide proper support. The Ld. AR accordingly prayed for one more opportunity with an undertaking that the case would be represented properly if given the 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 also call for a remand

ITA No.2225/Chny/2026 Vadivelu Selvarani

:- 3 -:

report as may be required including support from the Verification Unit to decide the impugned issues in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to submit the necessary details as may be called for 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 19th day of August, 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: 19th August, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA EJTADA DURGA NARESH आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: NARESH Date: 2026.08.20 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 15:30:25 -07'00' 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →