R MUTHIYAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-18, [CIT(A)] dated 16.01.2026 confirming the assessments framed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 & 2023-24.

ITA No. 3254 to 3258/Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20 to 2023-24) R Muthaiyan Vs ACIT, Nungambakkam Chennai :: 2 :: 2. In the instant appeals, the registry has noted the delay of 59 days in filing the captioned appeals. We have gone through the condonation petitions along with affidavit filed, we find that the reasons given by the assessee are sufficient cause for delay in filing the captioned appeals. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. We have heard the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative and the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. 4. The brief facts for AY 2019-20 are that the assessee, Shri R. Muthiyan, Proprietor of M/s. Vignesh Metals, along with his brother Shri R. Raja, Proprietor of M/s. Vignesh Super Store, was intercepted by the Chennai Police while carrying cash of Rs.1,27,50,000/-. Consequent to the said interception, a warrant u/s. 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 22.07.2022 and the cash was requisitioned from the Police authorities. Statements of the assessees were recorded, wherein the source of the cash was explained only partly, resulting in seizure of cash amounting to Rs.55,00,000/-. 5. Subsequently, the assessments for the assessment years under consideration were reopened and completed u/s.147 read with section 144, section 144, and section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as applicable to the respective assessment years, for the reasons recorded in the respective reassessment/assessment orders. Since the assessee failed to comply with the statutory notices issued during the reassessment/assessment proceedings and did not furnish the requisite details or explanations, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the

ITA No. 3254 to 3258/Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20 to 2023-24) R Muthaiyan Vs ACIT, Nungambakkam Chennai :: 3 :: reassessment/assessment proceedings ex parte, in accordance with law. 6. Aggrieved by the reassessment / assessment orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A). The appellate authority has also recorded that despite opportunities granted, the assessee neither appeared nor furnished any explanation or supporting evidence. Consequently, the CIT(A), by the impugned orders, confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 7. From the record before us, it is evident that both the reassessment / assessment orders as well as the orders passed by the CIT(A) are ex parte in nature. The additions have been sustained primarily on account of the assessee's failure to furnish the necessary explanations and supporting evidences. It is equally evident that the merits of the explanations have not been examined in the light of any documentary evidence since no such material was placed before the lower authorities. 8. The settled principle of law is that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations and that a litigant should ordinarily be afforded an effective opportunity of being heard before any adverse conclusion is reached. Since both the authorities below have proceeded ex parte and the issues involved require verification of the explanation and examination of the supporting evidences, we are of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 9. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) as well as the reassessment / assessment orders passed u/s. 147 read with section 144, 144, 143(3) of the Act and restore the entire matter to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo assessment subject to the

ITA No. 3254 to 3258/Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20 to 2023-24) R Muthaiyan Vs ACIT, Nungambakkam Chennai :: 4 :: assessee depositing consolidated costs of Rs. 25,000/- with the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within 30 days from receipt of this order and producing proof thereof before the AO. The Assessing Officer shall provide adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, permit the assessee to file all relevant documentary evidence and thereafter decide the issues afresh in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. 10. At the same time, the assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the denovo assessment proceedings and to furnish all information and evidences called for by the Assessing Officer (AO) without seeking unnecessary adjournments. In the event of failure on the part of the assessee to cooperate, the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 11. Since we have restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, we refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the additions, and all issues are left open to be adjudicated afresh. 12. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 05th day of August, 2026 in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (गगन गोयल) (मनु कुमार िग!र) (GAGAN GOYAL) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद$या/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %या�यक सद$य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

चे%नई/Chennai, 'दनांक/Dated: 05th August, 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS

ITA No. 3254 to 3258/Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20 to 2023-24) R Muthaiyan Vs ACIT, Nungambakkam Chennai :: 5 :: 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 SANDEE P KUMAR Digitally signed by SANDEEP KUMAR Date: 2026.08.11 17:50:22 +05'30'