THAJOON SHEIK MAHAMMED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(4), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 926/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to decide the grounds of appeal and that the AO did not provide a proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income, and the AO made a best judgment assessment adding unexplained cash deposits and bank credits. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order ex parte without deciding the grounds of appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly decided the appeal without addressing the grounds of appeal and whether the assessee was given a proper opportunity by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 20.04.2026Pronounced: 25.05.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld.CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 31.12.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2017-18 u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, it is brought to our notice that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order. The Ld. AR also brought to our notice

ITA No. 926 /Chny/2026(AY 2017-18) Thajoon Sheik Mohammed :: 2 :: that AO has passed ‘best judgment assessment’ without hearing the assessee (ex parte order). Hence, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC), the assessee prayed for one more opportunity before the AO.

3.

Per contra, the Ld.DR does not want us to give one more innings to the assessee.

4.

Having heard both the parties, it is noted that assessee did not file any return of income. The AO noted that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.15,30,500/- in his one bank account maintained at Catholic Syrian Bank and in another account, he had deposited an amount of Rs.75,500/- (total of Rs.16,06,000/-) during the demonetization period. Hence, he issued notices to the assessee and asked him to prove the nature and source of the deposit, which according to the AO the assessee failed to respond. Hence, he completed the assessment by passing best judgment assessment u/s.144 by making an addition of Rs.16,06,000/- u/s.69A of the Act and also taking note that assessee had bank credit of Rs.1,74,93,465/- which has not been explained by the assessee, hence, added the same u/s.69A of the Act. Thus, made total addition of Rs.1,90,99,465/-. On appeal, finding no response from the assessee to his four (4) notices, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO without

ITA No. 926 /Chny/2026(AY 2017-18) Thajoon Sheik Mohammed :: 3 :: going into the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. We do not countenance the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) since he has not decided the grounds of appeal as required under sub-section 6 of section 250 of the Act. Further, we find that the AO has not given proper opportunity to the assesssee during the assessment proceedings due to non-receipt of notices by the assessee may be due to glitches in the internet. Hence, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box (supra), we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of AO for de nova assessment. The assessee is directed to file relevant evidences as called for by the AO without fail and the AO to frame assessment order in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.

5.

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

Order pronounced on the 25th day of May, 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (इंटूरी रामा राव) (एबी टी. वर्की) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनाांक/Dated: 25th May, 2026. KB

ITA No. 926 /Chny/2026(AY 2017-18) Thajoon Sheik Mohammed :: 4 :: आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy to: 1. अपीलार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. ववभागीयप्रविविवि/DR 5. गार्डफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →