SRI KARPAGA VINAYAGA TILES,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), TIRUPPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3024/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 August 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, considering the assessee's request for another opportunity and the nature of additions made by the AO, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 227 days, which was condoned. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's grounds due to lack of explanation.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on additions made by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 40A(3),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 03.08.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी इंटूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद� एवं �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� के सम� । Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3024/Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sri Karpaga Vinayaga Tiles, Vs. The Income tax Officer, No:8/1334, Moorthy Thottam, Ward 1(2), Periyapooluvapatti, Neruperuchal Tirupur. Village, P.N.Road, Tirupur, Tamil Nadu-641 603. [PAN: ABYFS7296P]

(अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. RC Sachin, CA ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Premi, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 23.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 03.08.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 227 days. The assessee filed an affidavit accompanied by a petition explaining the reasons. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee are bona fide, which

2 I.T.A. No.3024/Chny/26

really prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 227 days is condoned.

3.

We note that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the grounds of the assessee in the absence of any explanation, which is evident from para Nos. 11.2, 12.2 and 13.2 of the impugned order. We note that the AO made additions on account of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C, disallowance under Section 48(3), and on account of unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") vide its order dated 28.12.2019 by holding that the assessee had failed to substantiate the claims in the assessment proceedings, which is evident from para No. 3 of the assessment order.

4.

Ld. AR, Mr. R.C. Sachin, C.A., prayed for one more opportunity, as the assessee is ready to prosecute his case before the ld. CIT(A) if the Tribunal affords one more opportunity.

5.

Ld. DR, Ms. Premi, Sr. AR, opposed the same by stating that no sufficient reasons were shown for the non-compliance before the ld. CIT(A) and prayed to reject the prayer of the ld. AR.

6.

Having heard both the parties, we note that, admittedly, the AO made additions under Sections 69C, 40A(3), and 69A of the Act, which require assistance by the assessee, and taking into account the undertaking of the ld. AR that the assessee shall represent its case before the ld. CIT(A), we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for its fresh consideration. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of its claim. The assessee shall represent before the ld. CIT(A) without fail and the ld. CIT(A) shall pass the order in

3 I.T.A. No.3024/Chny/26

accordance with law. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 03rd August, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 03.08.2026 MM/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.

Digitally signed MANISH by MANISH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2026.08.06 10:32:21 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →