SUN LAND PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. LNCOME TAX OFFICER. CORPORATE WARD-6(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1047/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 July 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the bonafide reasons for non-appearance due to the director's medical condition and business issues, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice. The appeal was remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened based on information of selling property below stamp duty valuation. Due to the director's severe medical condition and business difficulties, the assessee failed to respond to notices, leading to ex-parte assessment and dismissal of appeal. The assessee submitted an affidavit explaining these circumstances.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment and appeal dismissal were justified given the assessee's medical and financial difficulties. The primary issue was whether to grant a further opportunity to the assessee to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147,Section 144,Section 263,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & MS. PADMAVATHY.S

For Respondent: Mr. K Jayaganesh, CIT

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 11.12.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.

2.

The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of real estate and coordination of land purchase to the corporate on commission basis. The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2015-16 on 18.11.2015 declaring total income of Rs.6,71,940/-. The assessee's case was reopened

ITA No.1047/Chny/2026 Sun Land Properties Pvt. Ltd. :- 2 -:

based on the information that the assessee has sold immovable property below the stamp duty valuation. The assessment was completed u/s. 147 of the Act wherein addition of Rs. 4,29,35,800/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. Subsequently, the order of the A.O was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue by the PCIT on the ground that the A.O has not examined certain details pertaining to the land purchase transactions entered into by the assessee with M/s. Synergyone Infrastructure and Projects Ltd. The PCIT set aside the order u/s. 147 of the Act and restored the same back to the A.O with a direction to pass fresh assessment order denovo verifying all the issues after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The A.O during the course of set aside proceedings issued several notices to the assessee and the assessee has not responded to any of the notices. Accordingly, the A.O complete the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 263 of the Act after assessing the income of Rs. 1,05,82,13,156/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Even before the CIT(A), the assessee did not appear nor did the assessee made any written submissions. Therefore, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

3.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted an affidavit from the Director of the assessee-company in which the reasons for non appearance before the lower authorities are elaborated as under: “1. I am the Director of the Appellant Company and I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the appeal pending before Your Authority for the AY 2015-16. I am duly authorised to swear this affidavit on behalf of the Appellant Company. 2. I submit that I had undergone a liver transplant in the year 2018 and, ever since the said major surgery, I have been under continuous medical

ITA No.1047/Chny/2026 Sun Land Properties Pvt. Ltd. :- 3 -:

treatment. Owing to the nature of the surgery, I am required to undergo regular consultations and continuous treatment.

3.

I further submit that pursuant to the surgery, my health condition required constant medical monitoring, and continued treatment. The complications due to the surgery affected my physical health and overall ability to personally attend to the affairs of the Appellant Company. On account of the said medical condition, I was physically not in a position to participate in the proceedings and provide timely instructions for filing the required submissions. Even as on date, I continue to remain under regular medical treatment.

4.

I further submit that the Appellant Company over the past few years suffered a severe decline in its business activities. The business of the Company has drastically reduced and the Company has been facing serious financial and operational difficulties. Owing to the declining business condition, there was no person available to independently manage the affairs of the Company.

5.

I submit that I have been the person primarily responsible for managing the affairs of the Company and coordinating with the Chartered Accountants with respect to income tax matters, more particularly, the assessment and the first appellate proceedings for the subject AY 2015-16. The failure to file the requisite submissions during the assessment / appellate proceedings was purely inadvertent and beyond the control of the Appellant company, as all the notices were issued to my e-mail address. Owing to my prolonged medical condition and continuous treatment, I was unable to access the same on a regular basis and respond to the said notices within the prescribed time. Consequently, the assessment was made u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act and the appeal was also dismissed ex-parte by order dated 11.12.2025 for want of prosecution, without adjudicating the issues on merits.

6.

I submit that the failure to respond to the assessment / appellate notices was neither wilful nor deliberate, but purely due to unavoidable circumstances enumerated as above.

7.

I submit that irreparable hardship would be caused to the Appellant company and no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the Appellant Company is afforded one final opportunity to participate in the proceedings.”

4.

In the light of the above affidavit the ld AR submitted that the reasons for non-appearance before the lower authorities is bonafide. Accordingly the ld AR prayed for one more opportunity with an undertaking that the assessee

ITA No.1047/Chny/2026 Sun Land Properties Pvt. Ltd. :- 4 -:

would appear before the lower authorities if given an opportunity without seeking unnecessary adjournments and would fully cooperate. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice and fair play to represent the case properly by producing the required details. Accordingly, we remit the appeal back to the AO with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 09th day of July, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वक�) (पदमावती यस) (ABY. T. Varkey) (Padmavathy.S) लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य लेखा लेखा �याियक �याियक सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य / Judicial Member सद�य चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 09th July, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S EJTADA Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA NARESH आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: DURGA Date: 2026.07.16 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant NARESH 09:42:11 +05'30' 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →