R. MURUGESAN,RAMANATHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), RAMANATHAPURAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1464/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2026AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT after a delay, which was condoned. The Assessing Officer made additions to the assessee's income based on survey findings and discrepancies in property costs and advances. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits due to the assessee's non-appearance, and if a fresh opportunity should be granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 143(3),Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 12.05.2026Pronounced: 25.05.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्याययर्क सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1464/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 R. Murugesan, The Income Tax Officer, 175, Devipattinam Road, vs. Ward-1(1), Kenikarai, Velipattinam, Ramanathapuram. Ramanathapuram – 623 504. [PAN: ALLPM-8791-J] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant)

अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant by : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12.05.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)”), dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 13.03.2014 passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13.

:-2-: ITA. No:1464/Chny/2026. 2. At the threshold, we observe that there is a delay of 106 days in the filing of the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has furnished an affidavit explaining that the assessee is not well versed in the income tax proceedings. Therefore, the assessee was handed over the papers to Auditor for filing second appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT, Chennai and he has not taken effective steps to file the second appeal in time. Further, the assessee approached an Advocate who has facilitated filing the second appeal before the ITAT and he immediately filed the appeal on 16.03.2026. Upon perusal of the affidavit and after affording due opportunity of hearing from both parties, we are satisfied that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause for not presenting the appeal within the statutory period prescribed under law. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income on 07.12.2012 for the A.Y.2012-13, admitting a total income of Rs.30,54,620/-. A survey u/s.133A of the Act was conducted in the assessee’s premises on 20.01.2012 and a sworn statement was recorded from the assessee. The case was selected for scrutiny; accordingly, the AO issued statutory notices to the assessee and by calling for details. In response, the assessee filed its reply along with documents and evidence to support the claims. On verification of the documents submitted by the assessee, the AO found that the assessee has made a peak credit of Rs.22,00,000/- and claimed cost of residential building estimated amounting to Rs.65,53,400/- and cost of commercial building estimated to the tune of Rs.66,45,550/- and amount of Rs.46,00,000/- claimed as party advances and amount of Rs.50,000/- claimed deduction u/s.80G of the Act. The AO completed the assessment by passing an order u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 13.03.2014 by making additions to the tune of Rs.1,16,42,360/- as peak credit in bank transaction, difference in cost construction of residential and commercial property, disallowance of advance

:-3-: ITA. No:1464/Chny/2026. received from parties, unaccounted sale of house property and disallowance of deduction u/s.80G of the Act.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 15.04.2014.

5.

At the outset, we observed that the ld.CIT(A) has provided eight opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 3 of the ld.CIT(A) order to support the appeal of the assessee. However, the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices and hence, the ld.CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by confirming the order of the AO by passing an order dated 12.09.2025. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us. We note that none appeared before us to represent the assessee’s appeal.

6.

Per contra, the ld.DR supported the order of lower authorities.

7.

We have heard the ld.DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed an order by considering the submission made by the assessee and the information available with the department and on appeal the same has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to non-participation of the assessee.

8.

Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we are deeming it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and hence we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file to ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh on merits in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

:-4-: ITA. No:1464/Chny/2026.

9.

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

Order pronounced in the court on 25th May, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी वर्की ) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (ABY T VARKEY) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) न्याययर्क सदस्य/Judicial Member लेखासदस्य/Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, दिन ांक/Dated, the 25th May, 2026 Devadas आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुक्त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. ववभागीय प्रनतननधि/DR 5. गार्ा फाईल/GF DEVADAS Digitally signed by DEVADAS GOPALANACHARY GOPALANACHARY Date: 2026.05.27 09:48:12 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →