SINGHVI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(6). CHENNAI, CHENNAI

The brief facts of the case emanating from the records are that the assessee is a partnership firm, filed its return of income declaring Nil income for the AY 2015-16 on 07.09.2016. Based on the information received from the Office of the DDIT (Investigation), Kolkata, the assessee had received credits in his bank account from entry operators for Rs.61 lakhs. The AO had reasons to believe that the income had escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of sec.147 of the Act. Accordingly, the case was reopened and the statutory notices were issued. In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 10.01.2022 by declaring a total income of Rs.Nil. The assessee was served with a show cause notice dated 11.03.2022 and in response the assessee filed a reply on 16.03.2022. On perusal of the reply, the assessee had raised objections before the Income Tax Officer, Non- Corporate Ward 1(6), Chennai on 11.01.2022. The objection was disposed of on 20.03.2022. Further, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee for reassessment and in response, the assessee filed income tax return, computation of income, financials of the assessee, etc. However, the AO found that the submission made by the assessee does not prove the genuineness of the transactions and the assessee has failed to explain the facts of the transactions. Therefore, the AO made an addition of Rs.61 lakhs stating that the assessee is a beneficiary of Abhishek Srivatsav, who has layered the funds of Rs.61,00,000/- through multiple conduits having no genuine business activities and passed an order dated 29.03.2022 u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that on perusal of the records, the assessee had filed two times appeal against the same order passed by the AO on the same date, i.e., 28.04.2022. Since the first appeal filed by the assessee dated 28.94.2022 has already been adjudicated, therefore, this appeal (2nd appeal) has become infructuous and dismissed.

Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. At the outset, the ld.AR brought to the notice of the Bench that the assessee has wrongly filed two appeals before the ld.CIT(A), one against the order dismissing the objections raised for reopening and other one against the order of the AO u/s.147 of the Act. Both the appeals have been filed on 28.04.2022. Further, the ld.CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal one on 24.09.2025 and the other one on 25.09.2025 without considering the impugned issue. During the hearing, the ld.DR fairly agreed to remand the issue back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh against the order of the AO passed u/s.147 of the Act.

We have heard the rival submissions perused the material available on record along with the order of the authorities. The short controversy before us is whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee as infructuous without adjudicating the grounds raised against the reassessment order passed by the AO u/s.147 r.w.s.144/144B of the Act.

From the facts placed before us, it is noticed that the AO completed the reassessment proceedings vide order dated 29.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act, wherein an addition of Rs.61,00,000/- was made in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved by the said reassessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). However, the ld.CIT(A), while passing the impugned order dated 25.09.2025, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee had filed two appeals against the same order and that one of the appeals had already been adjudicated earlier. Accordingly, the appeal was treated as infructuous.

During the course of hearing, the ld. AR explained that due to a bona fide mistake, two separate appeals came to be filed electronically on the same date. One appeal pertained to the challenge against the order disposing of objections raised against the reopening proceedings, whereas the other appeal pertained

Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find merit in the submissions of the assessee. The right of appeal conferred under the Act is a valuable statutory right and an appeal filed against an assessment order is required to be adjudicated on merits by passing a speaking order in accordance with the provisions of section 250 of the Act. Merely because two appeals were filed owing to a procedural or inadvertent error, the substantive challenge made by the assessee against the reassessment order cannot be rendered infructuous without examination of the grounds raised therein.

We further note that the impugned order does not contain any discussion on the validity of reopening, the addition made by the AO, or any of the grounds raised by the assessee against the reassessment order dated 29.03.2022. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal solely on a technical ground without adjudicating the issues arising from the reassessment proceedings. In our considered opinion, such an approach defeats the very purpose of appellate proceedings and results in denial of an effective opportunity to the assessee to have its grievances adjudicated on merits.

Considering the entirety of facts and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the ld.CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits in relation to the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and furnish all relevant materials that

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