SERENE SENIOR LIVING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1) TAX, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 25,000/-.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment was completed ex-parte due to non-compliance. The Assessing Officer made additions for a difference between disclosed receipts and Form 26AS, and disallowed prior period expenditure. The CIT(A) also confirmed these additions ex-parte.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders were justified without effective adjudication on merits, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: MS. PADMAVATHY S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:
The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)] dated 20.03.2025 for Assessment Years 2018-19. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessment was completed ex-parte under the Act on account of non-compliance by the assessee during Covid-19 pandemic. The
ITA No. 3832/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Serene Senior Living Pvt Ltd Vs Dy. CIT CC 3(1) :: 2 :: AO observed a difference of Rs. 4,83,25,345/- between the receipts disclosed in the Profit & Loss Account and the receipts reflected in Form 26AS in respect of commission income and unit handover charges. Since the assessee had claimed credit of the corresponding TDS but had not offered the entire receipts to tax, and no explanation was furnished despite opportunities, the AO treated the differential amount as taxable income and made an addition of Rs. 4,83,25,345/-. The AO further noticed from Clause 27(b) of the Tax Audit Report that marketing commission aggregating to Rs. 1,73,94,262/- pertained to Assessment Year 2016-17 and represented prior period expenditure. As no explanation was furnished regarding its allowability during the relevant assessment year, the AO disallowed the said amount u/s. 37 of the Act. 3. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) also disposed of the appeal ex-parte, confirming the additions for want of any supporting submissions or evidence from the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) observed that despite several opportunities of hearing, the assessee neither filed submissions nor produced supporting documentary evidence. The CIT(A) held that once the assessee had claimed TDS credit on the receipts reflected in Form 26AS, the corresponding receipts ought to have been offered to tax. In the absence of any explanation reconciling the difference, the addition of Rs. 4,83,25,345/- was confirmed. With regard to the disallowance of Rs. 1,73,94,262/-, the CIT(A) relied upon the Tax Audit Report which categorised the expenditure as prior period expenses pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17. As the assessee failed to establish that the expenditure was allowable during the year under consideration, the disallowance was confirmed. The CIT(A) also rejected the assessee's contention regarding lack of opportunity, observing that sufficient opportunities
ITA No. 3832/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Serene Senior Living Pvt Ltd Vs Dy. CIT CC 3(1) :: 3 :: had been granted during the appellate proceedings but the assessee remained non-compliant. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal were dismissed. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. Authorised Representative submitted that both the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A) were passed ex parte without effective adjudication of the issues on merits. It was contended that the assessee could not place the relevant evidence and supporting documents before the lower authorities. It was therefore prayed that, in the interest of justice, one final opportunity may be granted to substantiate the claims regarding reconciliation of receipts reflected in Form 26AS as well as the allowability of the impugned expenditure. 5. The ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A), submitting that the assessee had failed to avail repeated opportunities provided during both the assessment and appellate proceedings. It was contended that the additions were rightly made and confirmed on account of the assessee's failure to furnish any explanation or supporting evidence. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the assessment was completed ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee. It is also evident that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex- parte, confirming the additions without the benefit of the assessee's explanations and supporting documents. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to place the necessary material on record. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
ITA No. 3832/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Serene Senior Living Pvt Ltd Vs Dy. CIT CC 3(1) :: 4 :: the additions, we set aside the impugned appellate order as well as the assessment on the disputed issues and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law subject to the condition that the assessee shall deposit a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. Proof of such payment shall be furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to diligently prosecute the case and actively participate in the assessment proceedings without fail. In case of non-compliance, the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment in accordance with law. Cost imposed must be deposited timely. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 27th day of July, 2026, in Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (प�ावती एस) (मनु कुमार िग$र) (PADMAVATHY S) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद$या/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %या�यक सद$य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे%नई/Chennai, Digitally signed 'दनांक/Dated: 27th July, 2026. SANDEE by SANDEEP SNDP, Sr. PS KUMAR P KUMAR Date: 2026.07.28 11:32:58 +05'30'
ITA No. 3832/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Serene Senior Living Pvt Ltd Vs Dy. CIT CC 3(1) :: 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
More judgments on Section 37
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 933/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 932/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 931/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company… vs The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), VadodaraITA 768/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026