KUPPUSAMY RAJKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-6(1), CHENNAI

The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds raised by the appellant on merits. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 is bad in law and liable to be quashed for want of proper and valid service of statutory notices.

The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that notices issued under sections 148A (a), 148A (b) were never properly served upon the appellant.

The learned Assessing Officer failed to establish and record in the assessment order the valid service of notice issued under section 148 upon the appellant and therefore the reassessment proceedings are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

The learned Assessing Officer failed to establish and record in the assessment order the valid service of mandatory notice under section 143(2) and therefore the assessment completed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 is invalid in law.

The learned authorities below failed to appreciate that mere issuance of notice is not sufficient and valid service of notice is mandatory for assumption of jurisdiction under the Act.

The learned Assessing Officer erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 147/148 in violation of the mandatory provisions of sections 148A, 148, 143(2) of the Act.

The learned Assessing Officer erred in treating the import purchases amounting to Rs. 1,46,22,229/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69C without appreciating that the same represented business purchases relating to the turnover declared by the appellant.

The learned Assessing Officer erred in treating the foreign outward remittances amounting to Rs. 32, 79,048/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69C without any material evidence to establish that the same constituted unexplained expenditure.

The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the appellant had already declared total turnover of Rs.1, 74, 18,889/- under the presumptive provisions of section 44AD and admitted income thereon.

The learned Assessing Officer erred in making additions under section 69C without rejecting the turnover disclosed by the appellant and without bringing any independent evidence on record.

The additions made by the Assessing Officer result in double taxation of the same business transactions already considered in the turnover declared under section 44AD.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was amongst the non-filers of return u/s. 139 of the Act, but the Revenue was in possession of certain high value transactions entered into by the assessee, i.e. Imports (Bill of entry) amounting to Rs. 1,46,22,229/- and outward foreign remittance – (advance payment against

The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee on ground of non- participation/response by the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. The assessee being further aggrieved with the same preferred the present appeal before us. We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee alongwith the grounds taken before us. It is observed that the assessee was non-compliant through out the proceedings before the authorities below and wants to absolve himself simply by filing a return (belated) u/s. 148 of the Act by assuming the provisions of section 44AD of the Act. This behaviour of the assessee is not appreciated by the bench and specially the grounds taken in a casual manner and shifting the whole blame on the authorities below.

Still, the Tribunal being a final fact-finding authority, our endeavour is to discuss the substantive orders passed by the authorities below after due participation of the assessee concerned. As in this case, as mentioned (supra) no substantive order is there, we deem it fit to give one last opportunity to the assessee to represent his matter again before the AO. In view of this, we restore the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to frame the assessment order de-novo on the issues already on record only after giving a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the provisions of section 282 of the Act and the assessee is

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only in the light of directions and observations (supra). Order pronounced on the 7th day of August, 2026 in Chennai.