SALEM TEXTILES LTD.,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-participation in both assessment and appellate stages. However, to meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Salem Textiles Limited, failed to file its return of income for AY 2020-21. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under section 147 based on bank deposit information and made an ex-parte addition of Rs. 3,25,92,408/-. The assessee did not participate in the assessment or appellate proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-participation should be upheld, or if the matter should be remanded for a fresh assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 133(6),Section 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA
आदेश / O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 21.01.2026, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y) 2020-21 against the reassessment order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) passed by the AO, dated 14.02.2025.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a public limited company and did not file its return of income for AY 2020-21. Based on the information available with the department, the AO found that the assessee has made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.1,40,94,000/- into its bank account maintained with The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd and
2 ITA No.863/Chny/2026 had made withdrawal of Rs.23,98,613/- during the assessment year. Hence, the case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee has filed its return of income on 04.04.2024 and had declared total income of Rs.(-)24,04,331/-. Further, the AO issued statutory notices to the assessee and by calling for details. The assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices. In the meanwhile, the AO issued notice u/s.133(6) of the Act and obtained the statement of accounts from the Karur Vysya Bank. On verification of the statement of bank accounts, the AO found that the assessee has made a total credits of Rs.3,25,92,408/- during the A.Y.2020-21. Since the assessee did not file any details, the AO completed the reassessment by passing an exparte order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 19.02.2024 by making an addition of entire credits in the bank to the tune of Rs.3,25,92,408/- (including the cash deposits of Rs. 1,40,94,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and amount of Rs.24,04,331/- as disallowance of expenses to the declared income of Rs.(-)24,04,331/- by arriving a total income of Rs.3,25,92,408/-.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 14.03.2025.
At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has has provided four opportunities to the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 4.1 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 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by confirming the order of the AO by passing an order dated 21.01.2026. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us.
The ld.AR submitted that the assessee company has no employees and no business operation carried out due to the company was not in operation and closed from 02.03.2016 and hence the assessee could not participate in the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. 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
3 ITA No.863/Chny/2026 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.
Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that both the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to appear before them. However, the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).
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 ex-parte order by considering the information available with the department and the same has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to non-participation 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.25,000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and the assessee shall satisfy the payment of cost before the authorities.
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.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 05th May, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (एस एस विश्वनेत्र रवि) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) न्याविक सदस्य/Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member
4 ITA No.863/Chny/2026 चेन्िई Chennai: दििधंक Dated : 05th May, 2026
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि/Copy to: 1. अपीलधर्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुक्त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. ववभधगीय प्रनतनिधर्/DR 5. गधर्ा फधईल/GF
DEVADAS Digitally signed by DEVADAS GOPALANA GOPALANACHARY Date: 2026.05.11 CHARY 15:18:11 +05'30'
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026