RAMASAMY SENTHIL RAJA,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO WARD 2, NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 234/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 June 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to file supporting documents. The appeal against the penalty order was deemed infructuous due to the remand of the quantum appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee remained absent before the AO, leading to an ex-parte assessment. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to provide supporting evidence for their submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions and whether the penalty appeal is sustainable when the quantum appeal is remanded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Hearing: 28.04.2026Pronounced: 15.06.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ◌, लेखा सद� के सम% Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 233 & 234/Chny/2026 िनधा&रण वष&/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ramasamy Senthil Raja, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2-96, Kattuvalavu East Ward 3, Ward -2, Vellakalpatty PO, Namakkal. Namagiripettai, Namakkal – 637 406. [PAN: BPLPS-7158-J] (अपीलाथ(/Appellant) ()*थ(/Respondent) अपीलाथ( की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. TS Lakshmi Venkataraman, CA (Virtual) )*थ( की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 28.04.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 15.06.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 30.11.2025 and 05.09.2024, respectively, passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi (herein after “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year 2017-18.

:-2-: ITA Nos: 233 & 234/Chny/2026

2.

Since issues raised in these appeals of the assessee are similar

based on the same identical facts, with the consent of both the parties,

we proceed to hear the appeals together and pass consolidated order

for the sake of convenience.

3.

First we take up ITA No: 233/Chny/2026 for AY 2017-18:

4.

The ld.AR, Mr. TS Lakshmi Venkataraman, CA, submits that the

assessee remained absent before the AO and the assessment was

completed as exparte of the assessee. Further, he submits that the

assessee filed written submissions before the ld.CIT(A), challenging the

action of the AO in making addition u/s. 69A of the Ac, but no supporting material evidence was filed as it is going into voluminous documents.

He submits that having no evidence in support of the written

submissions, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. He prayed to remand

the matter to the file of the AO for a fresh consideration and the assessee

is ready to file the said voluminous documents in support of his claim.

5.

The ld.DR, Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT, reported no objection.

6.

On perusal of the assessment order dated 17.12.2019, it is noted

that the AO concluded assessment to his best judgment u/s. 144 of the

:-3-: ITA Nos: 233 & 234/Chny/2026

Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after “the Act”), in the absence of any

submissions which is evident from page no.2 of the assessment order.

Further, on perusal of the impugned order at para no. 9, we note that the

assessee produced only cash book as a sole books of accounts and no

corresponding sale bills, purchase bills, customer ledgers, debtor

statements, AY sales reports or stock records filed. Therefore,

considering the submissions of the Ld.AR, with reference to the findings

of the ld.CIT(A) vide para no.9, we deem it proper to remand the matter

to the file of the AO for a fresh consideration. The assessee is liberty to

file evidences, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, grounds raised by

the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

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

purposes.

8.

Now we take up ITA No: 234/Chny/2026:

9.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 416 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

:-4-: ITA Nos: 233 & 234/Chny/2026

prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, delay of 416 days condoned.

10.

The appeal filed against the penalty order becomes infructuous in view of our decision in remanding the quantum appeal for the same assessment year in ITA No. 233/Chny/2026 for AY 2017-18 in the aforementioned paragraphs. Thus, the appeal filed challenging the action of the ld.CIT(A) in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO becomes infructuous.

11.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 15th June, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 15.06.2026 JPV आदेश की )ितिलिप अ0ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ(/Appellant, 2.)*थ(/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु1/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय )ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड& फाईल/GF

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.06.17 11:59:18 +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 →