BALU RAVICHANDRAN,BODINAYAKANUR, THENI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, THENI, INCOME TAX OFFICE, THENI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "the ld. CIT(A)"], for the Assessment Year 2019-20, whereby the assessment framed under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was confirmed.

ITA No 974/Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20) Balu Ravichandran Vs ITO W-1 Theni :: 2 :: 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 83 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. Upon consideration of the averments made therein, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Briefly stated, the appellant did not file the return of income for the relevant assessment year. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of information flagged on the Insight Portal under the Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 was issued on 30.03.2023. The appellant did not file a return in response thereto. During the reassessment proceedings, various statutory notices were issued to the appellant. However, no compliance was made. Consequently, the assessment was completed ex parte under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Act on 01.03.2024, determining total income at ₹21,09,000/- by making an addition of ₹21,09,000/- under Section 69, taxable under Section 115BBE, on account of alleged unexplained purchase of property. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), which was subsequently migrated to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. During the appellate proceedings, several notices were issued to the appellant, including a final notice dated 09.09.2025 requiring compliance by 16.09.2025. Despite service of the notices, the appellant neither filed any written submission or supporting evidence nor sought

ITA No 974/Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20) Balu Ravichandran Vs ITO W-1 Theni :: 3 :: adjournment. The CIT(A) observed that the appellant had not effectively pursued the appeal and had failed to furnish any material to controvert the findings of the Assessing Officer. In the absence of any response or supporting evidence, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared for the assessee despite several notice issued. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the authorities below. It was submitted that sufficient opportunities had been afforded to the assessee during both the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings, but the assessee failed to avail the same. It was, therefore, contended that the addition was rightly made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the submissions of ld. DR and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the assessment was completed ex parte owing to the non-compliance of the assessee. It is equally evident that the ld. CIT(A) also disposed of the appeal ex parte without the benefit of the assessee's explanations and supporting documentary evidence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and bearing in mind the settled principle that an assessee should ordinarily be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before an adverse decision is taken, we are of the considered opinion that one final opportunity deserves to be granted to the assessee to place the necessary material on record. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer, we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) as well as the

ITA No 974/Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20) Balu Ravichandran Vs ITO W-1 Theni :: 4 :: assessment on the disputed issues and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer shall afford adequate and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the issues afresh in accordance with law after considering the evidence that may be produced. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and diligently participate in the assessment proceedings. In the event of any failure or non-compliance on the part of the assessee, the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 10th day of August,2026 in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (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: 10th August 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS 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 Digitally signed SANDEE by SANDEEP KUMAR P KUMAR Date: 2026.08.11 17:44:33 +05'30'