MARIMUTHU SATHISHKUMAR,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 861/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay due to bona fide reasons. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear, the Tribunal reduced the addition made by the AO from ₹36,21,180 to ₹4,00,000 in the interest of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay of 718 days. The assessment and appellate orders were passed ex parte as the assessee failed to represent their case before the authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte assessment order and the subsequent confirmation by the CIT(A) are justified, and what is the appropriate quantum of addition for unexplained money.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Hearing: 11.05.2026Pronounced: 29.05.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.861/Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Marimuthu Sathishkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward I(2), 1/14-52d, TB Road ESI Salem, Income Tax Department, Backside Sankari East Sankari TK, NO 3, Gandhi RD, Hasthampatti, Salem Tamil Nadu-637301. Salem, Tamil Nadu. [PAN: CLTPS5856C] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. (Virtual) ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 11.05.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.05.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 718 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on an examination of the said affidavit, we find that the reasons stated by the assessee are bona fide,

2 I.T.A. No.861/Chny/26

which really prevented filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 718 days is condoned.

3.

At the outset, we find the orders passed by the AO and the ld. CIT(A) ex parte of the assessee. On perusal of the assessment order dated 17.09.2021, the AO made addition of ₹36,21,180/- or ₹36,31,200/- on account of unexplained money under Section 69(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). Admittedly, there was no representation on behalf of the assessee before the AO in the assessment proceedings. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee challenged the same before the ld. CIT(A), wherein it is noted that no representation was made before the ld. CIT(A), thereby the ld. CIT(A) proceeded to confirm the order of the AO for non-compliance.

4.

Ld. AR Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. submits that the reasonable estimation of profit may be adopted in this case also as adopted in ITA No.860/Chny/2026 as it is in the case of assessee’s favour.

5.

Ld. DR Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT opposed the same as the assessee failed to represent his case before the AO as well as ld. CIT(A) in spite of having opportunities. She submits that the profit rate as admitted to have been considered in ITA No.860/Chny/2026 is not reasonable. She prayed to adopt more than the profit rate of 8% in this case to meet the ends of justice.

6.

Having heard both the parties, we note that admittedly, on such suggestion made by the ld. AR in assessee’s father’s case in ITA No.860/Chny/2026 for AY 2012-13, we have taken a decision to adopt

3 I.T.A. No.861/Chny/26

8% profit rate on disputed amount (addition) taking into account the AY 2012-13, but further in the present case no representation whatsoever was made before both the authorities below by the assessee, therefore, adopting 8% profit rate is not justified as rightly pointed out by the ld. DR. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, being an old AY, we confirm the addition of ₹4,00,000/- as income of the assessee as against the addition of ₹36,21,180/- made by the AO which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced on 29th May, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 29.05.2026 MM/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड� फाईल/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 →