AHAMED KABEER ABDUL KADER,CHENNAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 835/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 July 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file evidence to support their claims.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 13 days, which was condoned. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions on account of unexplained money and interest income. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A), leading to the confirmation of the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order confirming additions due to non-compliance should be set aside, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & MS. PADMAVATHY.S

Hearing: 04.06.2026Pronounced: 15.07.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी यस यस िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं सु�ी पदमावती यस, लेखा सद� के सम# BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 835/Chny/2026 िनधा$रण वष$/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ahamed Kabeer Abdul Kader, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-11, Madura Garden Apartment, Ward-1, Poonamalle High Road, Pudukkottai. Maduravoyal, Chennai – 600 095. [PAN: AEZPA-6584-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()थ'/Respondent) अपीलाथ' की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. K. Vishwa Padmanaban, CA & Smt. R. Prithivi, CA ()थ' की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. L. Christopher Vasanth, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 04.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 15.07.2026 : 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 27.11.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 13 days. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said

2 ITA No. 835/Chny/2026 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 13

days condoned.

3.

At the outset, it is noted that the AO completed assessment by

determining the income of the assessee at Rs.86,04,170/- on account of

unexplained money and variation in respect of interest income under the

head income from other sources vide his order dated 20.02.2025 passed

u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after “the

Act”). The assessee challenged the same before the ld.CIT(A), but however, made no compliance in respect of notices issued by the first appellate authority. Thereby, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO for being non-compliant throughout the first appellate proceedings vide his reasons recorded at para no. 7.3 & 7.4 of the impugned order. As aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is before us.

4.

The ld.AR, Shri. K. Vishwa Padmanaban, CA admits that there was no representation before the ld.CIT(A) and prayed to remand the matter to the

file of the ld.CIT(A) for a fresh consideration by giving an opportunity to the assessee to contest the addition made u/s. 69A of the Act.

3 ITA No. 835/Chny/2026 5. The ld.DR, Shri. L. Christopher Vasanth, JCIT, reported no objection.

6.

Upon hearing both the parties and considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, it is noted that the ld.CIT(A) admittedly

confirmed the order of AO by holding that there was no representation of

assessee in support of the grounds raised in Form-35. Since, there is no

representation, in the interest of justice, taking into account the nature of

addition made u/s. 69A of the Act, we deem it proper to remand the matter

to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for a 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 are allowed for statistical

purposes.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes. Order pronounced on 15th July, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस. पदमावती) (यस यस �व�वने� र�व) (S. PADMAVATHY) (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member

Chennai, Dated: 15.07.2026

4 ITA No. 835/Chny/2026 JPV 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.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.07.20 16:40:58 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →