RAMAREDDY THIPPAREDDY,HOSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, HOSUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3205/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 August 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that both the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex parte without affording the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard. The impugned appellate order was set aside due to violation of principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file income tax return for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte, treating cash deposits during demonetisation as unexplained income and estimating business income. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment and appellate proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice by not providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: GAGAN GOYAL & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 23.07.2026

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. CIT(A)"), whereby the ex parte assessment framed u/s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for the Assessment Year 2017-18 was confirmed.

ITA No 3205/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18) Ramareddy Thippareddy Vs ITO W-1 :: 2 :: 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of mobile recharge as a Vodafone distributor under the name and style of Shri Ram Mobiles, Hosur, and is assessed to income tax under PAN: AHOPT4879K with the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hosur. For the Assessment Year 2017-18, the assessee did not file the return of income. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 22.12.2017 was issued by the Assessing Officer. It is the case of the Revenue that a further communication dated 14.08.2019 and a show-cause notice dated 10.12.2019 were also issued to the assessee. However, according to the assessee, he was not aware of the aforesaid notices and, consequently, no compliance could be made. In the absence of any response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded to complete the assessment ex parte u/s. 144 of the Act vide order dated 29.12.2019. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer treated the entire cash deposits aggregating to Rs.60,22,500/- made in the assessee's various bank accounts during the demonetisation period as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act and subjected the same to tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer further estimated the business income at 4% of Rs.3,31,94,947/-, being the difference between the total bank credits of Rs.3,92,17,447/- and the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period amounting to Rs.60,22,500/-, and determined a sum of Rs.13,27,797/- as undisclosed business income. Consequently, the total taxable income was assessed at Rs.73,50,297/-. The Assessing Officer also levied interest u/s.s

ITA No 3205/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18) Ramareddy Thippareddy Vs ITO W-1 :: 3 :: 234A and 234B of the Act amounting to Rs.14,15,896/- and Rs.16,11,192/-, respectively.

3.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), inter alia, contending that the assessment had been completed ex parte without affording a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. It was further submitted that the assessee had not opted for service of notices through e-mail in Form No. 35 and that no effective opportunity was provided during the appellate proceedings. The assessee, therefore, sought restoration of the matter for adjudication on merits. However, the Ld. CIT(A), without granting the relief sought, dismissed the appeal ex-parte and confirmed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer.

4.

Being further aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. Authorised Representative ("Ld. AR") submitted that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Ld. CIT(A) afforded the assessee a proper and effective opportunity of being heard and that both the authorities proceeded to decide the matter ex parte. It was contended that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the issues on merits. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that one final opportunity be granted to the assessee to produce all relevant documents and evidences before the Ld. CIT(A.) for proper adjudication of the issues involved.

ITA No 3205/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18) Ramareddy Thippareddy Vs ITO W-1 :: 4 :: 5. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative ("Ld. DR") supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident that both the assessment order as well as the appellate order have been passed ex parte. The record indicates that the assessee was not afforded an effective and meaningful opportunity of being heard during the appellate proceedings. It is a settled principle of law that adherence to the principles of natural justice is a condition precedent to any quasi-judicial adjudication and that every litigant must be afforded a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case before an adverse order is passed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the impugned appellate order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo in accordance with law, after affording the assessee an adequate and effective opportunity of being heard and after considering such submissions and evidences as may be placed on record in support of his claim. The assessee is directed to extend full cooperation and diligently participate in the appellate proceedings. It is made clear that in the event of failure on the part of the assessee to avail the opportunities so granted or to comply with the notices issued by the appellate authority, the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to dispose of the appeal

ITA No 3205/Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18) Ramareddy Thippareddy Vs ITO W-1 :: 5 :: on merits in accordance with law on the basis of the material available on record. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 06th day of August 2026 in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (गगन गोयल) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (Gagan Goyal) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद)य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद)य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, *दनांक/Dated: 06th 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 SANDE Digitally signed by EP SANDEEP KUMAR KUMA Date: 2026.08.11 R 17:47:25 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →