JAYA RAMACHANDHRA SUBRAMANIAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON-CORP. CIRCLE-1,, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1465/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 order of the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo assessment after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a doctor, did not respond to notices from the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The AO made an ex-parte addition of Rs. 31,30,818/- as business income. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment orders passed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-compliance should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 145(3),Section 147,Section 148

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.1465/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jaya Ramachandhra Subramaniam, The Assistant Commissioner No.37, Mandaiveli Street, vs. of Income-tax, RA Puram, Non-Corp Circle-1 Chennai – 600 028. Chennai. [PAN: ASDPS-7480-B] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant)

अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. K.R. Adivarahan, C.A 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 27.09.2024 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 15.12.2019 passed u/s.144 r.w.s 145(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13.

:-2-: ITA. No:1465/Chny/2026. 2. At the threshold, we observe that there is a delay of 75 days in the filing of the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has furnished an affidavit explaining that the assessee was not aware of the hearing notices and impugned order passed by the first appellate authority due to the notices sent to the company mail ID of the Chartered Accountant and it was unnoticed during the appellate proceedings. 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, deriving income from medical profession as a Consulting Doctor in Apollo Hospital and at his private clinic at Mandaveli, Chennai and has filed his return of income for AY 2012-13, declaring total income of Rs.44,73,052/-. Based on the information available with the department, the AO found that the assessee has received unaccounted income in the form of outpatient consultation done at Apollo Hospital to the tune of Rs.30,31,000/- during the assessment year. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee and by calling for details. Since the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to the any of the notices, the AO completed the reassessment by passing an exparte order u/s.144 r.w.s 145(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 15.12.2019 by making an addition of Rs.31,30,818/- as business income and by arriving total income of Rs.76,03,870/-.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 13.01.2020.

:-3-: ITA. No:1465/Chny/2026. 5. At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided seven opportunities to the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 1.1 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 disposed of the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes by confirming the order of the AO by passing an order dated 27.09.2024. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us.

6.

The ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has passed order by disposing of the appeal filed by the assessee due to non-compliance of the assessee in the appellate proceedings. Further, the ld.AR of the assessee stated that the Assessing Officer also has passed an exparte order without consideration of the reply filed by the assessee. In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of AO. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment proceedings effectively.

7.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

8.

We have heard the rival parties 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 information available with the department and the same has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to non-compliant of the assessee. Since, the assessee has failed to participate before the AO as well as the first appellate authority, we levy the cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of

:-4-: ITA. No:1465/Chny/2026. Madras within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and the assessee shall satisfy the payment of cost before the authorities.

9.

In view of the above and to meet the ends of justice we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO and direct the AO to denovo frame the assessment order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

10.

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

Order pronounced in the open 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 प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुक्त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. ववभागीय प्रनतननधि/DR 5. गार्ा फाईल/GF Digitally signed by DEVADAS DEVADAS GOPALANACHARY GOPALANACHARY Date: 2026.05.27 10:17:31 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 145(3)

All 3,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145(3) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →