DEVARAJAN MALLIKARJUNAN,TIRUPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), TIRUPUR

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned online appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)] dated 17.02.2026 for Assessment Year 2019- 20. 2. Appellant is an Individual, engaged in the business of trading of groceries, fruits, vegetables and textile products. As the business had resulted in loss, the Appellant did not file any return of income

ITA No 1317/Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20) Devarajan Mallikarjunan Vs ITO, W-1(4) :: 2 :: u/s 139 of the Act. Since there was a cash deposits of Rs. 1.25 crores in the bank account, the case was re-opened and notices u/ss 148 and 142(1) of the Act issued on various dates followed by followed by a show cause notice. 3 Though the business had resulted in loss, the Appellant did not have sufficient evidence to establish the same. Therefore, the Appellant had filed a return of income u/s 148 of the Act on 07.01.2024, admitted gross sales of Rs.1,33,71,590/- and net profit of Rs. 10,98,740/- u/s 44AD of the Act. AO assessed the income as Rs. Returned income (+) Addition u/s 69A of the Act Assessed income: 1,24,70,220+ 1,24,70,220/- respectively. Furthermore, the learned assessing officer levied consequential interest u/s 234A & 234B of the Act and also imitated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), claimed that the AO erred in making addition without appreciating the facts and supporting documents filed on 07.01.2024. But the Ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 17.02.2026 dismissed the appeal of the assessee by stating the reasons that that the assessee remained non-compliant during appellate proceedings despite repeated opportunities and confirmed the order of AO. 5. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Ld CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The Ld. AR for the assessee has claimed that no proper opportunity has been served upon and passed exparte order without appreciating the facts.

ITA No 1317/Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20) Devarajan Mallikarjunan Vs ITO, W-1(4) :: 3 :: 7. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We observe that the order of the CIT(A) had been passed without providing the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard during the appellate proceedings. It is settled law that the principles of natural justice require that adequate and reasonable opportunity be afforded before adjudicating the appeal. Since no proper notice of hearing/opportunity was provided to the assessee, the appellate order suffered from violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal denovo after granting adequate opportunity of hearing and considering the submissions/evidence that may be furnished by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to diligently to participate in the appellate proceedings. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 03rd day of June 2026, in

Sd/- Sd/- (प�ावती एस) (मनु कुमार िग#र) (PADMAVATHY S) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद$या/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %या�यक सद$य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No 1317/Chny/2026 (AY 2019-20) Devarajan Mallikarjunan Vs ITO, W-1(4) :: 4 :: चे%नई/Chennai, 'दनांक/Dated: 03rd June, 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS

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