NARENDRAN SENGAMALAI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT INTL TAX CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 266/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 July 2026AY 2016-176 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as there was no appealable order before it. The assessee had not exhausted the proper appellate remedies, and therefore, the grounds raised were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 94,00,000, but the stamp duty valuation was Rs. 1,24,56,000. The Assessing Officer added the difference of Rs. 30,56,000 as unexplained investment. The assessee inadvertently filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) instead of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable before the ITAT when the assessee has not followed the correct appellate procedure by approaching the DRC instead of the DRP. Whether the difference between stamp duty value and sale consideration can be treated as unexplained investment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69B,Section 144C,Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: HONOURABLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Hearing: 17.06.2026Pronounced: 16.07.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री गगन गोयल लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE HONOURABLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 266/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2016-17 Narendra Sengamalai, v. Assistant Commissioner of Villa No.PP8 & PP9, Phase-3, Income Tax, Jones Cassia, Karanai Main Road, Circle-2(2), Chennai-600 130. Chennai. [PAN: AWLPS9522Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr. Karunakaran, Advocate, Ld. AR प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Mr. Guru Bashyam, CIT, Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 17.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 16.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation (hereinafter referred as the ‘ACIT (IT)’), Circle-2(2), Chennai for the assessment year (hereinafter referred as the ‘AY’) 2016-17.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. The order of the Assessing officer in adding Rs. 30,56,000/- as unexplained Investment under section 69B of the Act is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. 2. The appellant submits that he has not made any unexplained investment and the actual investment in acquiring the property at Rs. 94, 00,000/- was duly shown by him.

Page 1 of 6

ITA No.266/Chny/2026 (2016-17) Narendran Sengamalai 3. The Assessing officer erred in treating the difference between the guideline value adopted for stamp duty purposes of Rs. 1, 24, 56,000/- and the apparent consideration of Rs. 94,00,000/- as unexplained investment.

4.

The appellant submits that the difference in stamp duty value and actual consideration paid represent notional value adopted for assessment purposes and no physical cash investment was made in the transaction and therefore the same cannot be considered as unexplained investment within the meaning of section 69B of the Act.

5.

The appellant therefore prays that the addition of Rs. 30, 56,000/- made u/s 69B of the Act may be deleted and justice rendered.

6.

The appellant further submits that the order of the Assessing officer passed u/s 144C (13) on 28/11/2025 is barred by limitation of time.

7.

The appellant has raised objection against the draft assessment order passed by the assessing officer u/s 144C (1) before the Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) inadvertently instead of before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the DRC has rejected the objection raised as the disputed amount exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs and it had no power to entertain the application.

8.

The appellant therefore submits that there was no objection raised before the Dispute Resolution Panel as admitted by the assessing officer himself before the DRC and therefore the assessing officer ought to have passed the assessment order within one month from the end of the month in

9.

The appellant submits that the assessing officer ought to have passed the order u/s 144C by 30th April, 2025 and the order passed on 28/11/2025 is barred by limitation of time.

10.

The appellant further submits that there is no direction by the DRP in the appellant's case and therefore the provisions of section 144C (13) would not apply to the appellant's case.

11.

The appellant further submits that he has filed the objections before the DRC on 31/3/2025 and if the DRC has passed the order immediately, the appellant would have filed the proper objection before the DRP within 30 days of receipt of the draft order which expired on 13th April, 2025.

12.

The appellant therefore prays that the order of the assessing officer maybe cancelled as time barred or in the alternative the addition of Rs. 30, 56,000/- made u/s 69B as unexplained investment may be deleted and justice rendered.

Page 2 of 6

ITA No.266/Chny/2026 (2016-17) Narendran Sengamalai 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident and amongst the non-filers of the return. As per the information available the assessee made a payment of Rs. 94 Lacs towards the purchase of an immovable property. Based on this information a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued vide dated: 29.03.2023. Thereafter, a draft order u/s. 144C (1) of the Act was also issued vide dated: 14.03.2025, as the assessee is an eligible assessee for the purposes of section 144C of the Act. As per law the assessee can approach the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to object this draft order within 30 days of its receipt or may accept the same. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred his objections before the Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC), instead of DRP inadvertently. Ultimately, the case of the assessee was assessed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Act by making addition of Rs. 30.56 Lacs u/s. 69B of the Act being difference between the actual purchase consideration of the property, i.e. 94 Lacs and stamp duty valuation of the same, i.e. 1,24,56,000/-.

3.

The assessee’s application before the e-DRC in Form No. 34BC is also rejected in view of section 245MA of the Act, as the same is applicable in the cases where the amount of variation is upto 10 Lacs. But in this case the amount of variation was Rs. 30.56 Lacs. In this matter there is neither any order of the AO in pursuance of the directions of DRP or order of the Ld. CIT(A), which can be further adjudicated by us, to further clarify, we are reproducing herein below the provisions of section 253 of the Act as under:

Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal.

253.(1) Any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order-

(a) an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)before the 1st day of October, 1998 or, as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals) under section 154, section 158BFA, section 250, section 270A, section 271, section 271A, section 271AAB, section 271AAC, section 271AAD, section 271J or section 272A; or

(aa) an order passed by a Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under section 154, section 250, section

Page 3 of 6

ITA No.266/Chny/2026 (2016-17) Narendran Sengamalai 270A, section 271, section 271A, section 271AAC, section 271AAD or section 271J; or

(b) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January, 1997; or

(ba) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 115VZC; or

(c) an order passed by, -

(i) a Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under section 12AA or section 12AB or under clause (vi) of sub-section (5) of section 80G or under section 263 or under section 270A or under section 271 or under section 272A or an order passed by him under section 154 amending any such order; or

(ii) a Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or a Principal Director General or Director General or a Principal Director or Director under section 263 or under section 272A or an order passed by him under section 154 amending any such order; or]

(d) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section (3), of section 143 or section 147 or section 153A or section 153C in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order;

(e) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 147 or section 153A or section 153C with the approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA or an order passed under section 154 or section 155 in respect of such order;

(f) An order passed by the prescribed authority under sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub- clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10.

(2) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he objects to any order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) before the 1st day of October, 1998 or, as the case may be, the Joint

Page 4 of 6

ITA No.266/Chny/2026 (2016-17) Narendran Sengamalai Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals)] under section 154 or section 250, direct the Assessing Officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the order.

(2A) [***]

(3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed within two months from the end of the month in which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee or to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be:

Provided that in respect of any appeal under clause (b) of sub-section (1), this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words “sixty days”, the words “thirty days” had been substituted.]

(3A) [***]

(4) The Assessing Officer or the assessee, as the case may be, on receipt of notice that an appeal against an order, has been preferred under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) by the other party, may, notwithstanding that he may not have appealed against such order or any part thereof, within thirty days of the receipt of the notice, file a memorandum of cross-objections, verified in the prescribed manner, against any part of such order, and such memorandum shall be disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented within the time specified in sub-section (3).

(5) The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross- objections after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.

4.

In view of the above, with full concerns towards the assessee, we are of the opinion that the assessee has to approach the Ld. CIT (A) first with an application for condonation of delay and then only can approach to us, in case he deems fit. In the light of provisions of section 253 of the Act, the present appeal of the assessee can’t be entertained by us as there is no appealable order for the consideration of Tribunal. In view of this, all the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed and returned back without any observation.

Page 5 of 6

ITA No.266/Chny/2026 (2016-17) Narendran Sengamalai 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed without any remarks or observations. Order pronounced on the 16th day of July, 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वर्की) (गगन गोयल) (ABY T. VARKEY) (GAGAN GOYAL) न्याययक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनाांक/Dated: 16th July, 2026. KB आदेश की प्रयतललपप अग्रेपषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT, Chennai /Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. पवभागीय प्रयतयनधि/DR 5. गार्ड फाईल/GF Digitally signed K BABU by K BABU Date: 2026.07.27 10:29:17 +05'30'

Page 6 of 6

More judgments on Section 69B

All 1,579 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →