KARTHICK RAJA,KANGAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(4), TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3679/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 June 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed directly before it was not maintainable as the assessee had not exhausted the remedy of appeal before the first appellate authority (CIT(A)). However, the assessee was directed to file an appeal before the CIT(A) within 30 days, and the delay was to be condoned.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property but failed to file a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition, which was set aside by the CIT(A) for fresh assessment. The AO then made a fresh addition, and the assessee appealed directly to the ITAT instead of the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of an appeal filed directly before the ITAT without first appealing to the CIT(A). The Tribunal also considered the assessee's right to challenge the addition made by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 69A,Section 250,Section 144B

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: 01.06.2026Pronounced: 23.06.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) passed on 29.11.2025 making an addition of Rs.9,80,000/-.

2.

Brief facts are that based on information available with department the AO noted that assessee has purchased an immovable property for an

ITA No.3679/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Karthick Raja. :: 2 :: amount of Rs.9.80 lakhs on 23.09.2025, but failed to file return of income for the relevant year i.e. AY 2016-17. Hence, the case was reopened u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); and the AO finding no response from the assessee has passed assessment order on 31.03.2022 u/s.147/144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.48,09,437/- u/s.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 28.01.2025 was pleased to set aside the assessment back to the file of AO for fresh assessment since, AO had passed ex parte order dated 31.03.2022. Pursuant to the order of Ld CIT(A) dated 28.01.2025 the AO passed order u/s.144/250 r.w.s. 144B of the Act making an addition of Rs.9,80,000/- u/s.69A of the Act vide order dated 29.11.2025 (herein after the second round of assessment before the AO).

3.

The assessee is noted to have filed this captioned appeal before this Tribunal on 05.12.2025 i.e. against the assessment order passed on 29.11.2025 within 7 days [against the second round of assessment before the AO], obviously without filing an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who is the first appellate authority u/s.250 of the Act. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee directly before this Tribunal, against the assessment order without filing an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) is not maintainable. Having said so, the assessee’s vested right to challenge the validity of the addition made by the AO by assessment order dated 29.11.2025 cannot be denied even though assessee inadvertently preferred appeal before

ITA No.3679/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Karthick Raja. :: 3 :: this Tribunal. Hence, we hold the instant appeal to be infructuous and direct the assessee to file appeal before the first appellate authority in accordance to law. If the assessee files the appeal before the first appellate authority within 30 days of receipt of this order, then the delay caused may be condoned, since we note that the assessee had filed albeit mistakenly before this Tribunal within 7 days of passing of the assessment order dated 29.11.2025. In such an event, the Ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and admit appeal and decide the grounds of appeal on merits in accordance to law.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is non-maintainable and dismissed being infructuous.

Order pronounced on the 23rd day of June, 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (एबी टी. वक�) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 23rd June, 2026. YS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF YASHVIR Digitally signed by YASHVIR SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.07.10 16:19:50 +05'30'

ITA No.3679/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) Karthick Raja. :: 4 ::

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →