MANOHARAN,THIRUVARUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), TRICHY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3021/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 July 2026AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the lack of compliance before the CIT(A) and that the additions made by the AO under Section 56(2)(viib) required the assessee's assistance. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a 2-day delay, which was condoned. The assessee had not made any compliance before the CIT(A) and sought to prosecute the case for additions made by the AO on account of income from other sources.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence when additions were made under Section 56(2)(viib) due to non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(viib)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO & BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 28.07.2026

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 AND BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3021/Chny/2026 िनधा'रण वष'/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Manoharan, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of No.9, Then Vadal Sixth St Income Tax, Mannargudi H.O., Circle -2(1), Thanjavur – 614 001. Trichy. [PAN: AIMPM-5419-P] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,थ*/Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. K. Meenakshisundaram, ITP +,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 28.07.2026 : 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 11.03.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16.

2 ITA No. 3021/Chny/2026

2.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 2 days. The

assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said

delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find

the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really prevented

the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, delay of 2 days condoned.

3.

At the outset, the ld.AR, Shri. Meenakshisundaram, ITP, submits that

the assessee made no compliance before the ld.CIT(A) and drew our

attention to the para no.4 of the impugned order. He submits that the

assessee is ready to prosecute his case before the ld.CIT(A) in support of

the claims challenging the additions made by the AO on account of income

from other sources.

4.

The ld.DR, Ms. Premi, Sr.AR, opposed the same and drew our

attention to the para no. 8 to 13.1 of the impugned order. She prayed to

reject the request of the ld.AR.

5.

Having heard both the parties, we note that admittedly no

compliances were made before the ld.CIT(A), which is evident from para

no. 8.1 & 9.1 of the impugned order, wherein the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the

view of AO for non-filing of submissions/evidences in support of the

3 ITA No. 3021/Chny/2026

grounds raised in Form 35. We are of the considered opinion that since the AO made addition under income from other sources relating to the disallowance u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act, wherein, in our opinion, requires assistance of the assessee. Since, no opportunity was available for the assessee before the ld.CIT(A), we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, order of the ld.CIT(A) is set aside and grounds raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28th July, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Chennai, Dated: 28.07.2026 JPV आदेश की +ितिलिप अ3ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ*/Appellant, 2.+,थ*/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु4/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय +ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड' फाईल/GF.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.07.30 10:37:56 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 56(2)(viib)

All 746 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(viib) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →