BASKAR SASIKALA,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KANCHIPURAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1708/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal granted one final opportunity to the assessee to furnish necessary details before the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the interest of justice and fair play.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was ex-parte before the CIT(A) due to non-compliance with notices. The assessment was completed with an addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- for unexplained investment as the assessee provided only partial responses.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present evidence for unexplained investment, given the ex-parte assessment and partial compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & MS PADMAVATHY S

Hearing: 14.05.2026Pronounced: 15.05.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.01.2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2019-20.

- 2 - ITA No.1708/CHNY/2026 Baskar Sasikala 2. At the very outset, we notice that the order of First Appellate Authority (FAA) is ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to three notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. Further, we also note that the assessment has been completed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making addition of Rs.11,00,000/- towards unexplained investment u/s.69A of the Act. The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings had only given partial response to the hearing notices.

3.

The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee failed to take note of the notices issued by the FAA and, therefore, remained ex- parte before the FAA. The AO completed the assessment by making an addition of Rs.11,00,000/- towards unexplained investment u/s.69A of the Act, since the assessee had not furnished the requisite evidences in support of her claim. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had only partially responded to the show-cause notices issued during the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld.AR pleaded that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee and the matter may be restored to the file of the AO, so as to enable the assessee to furnish all the necessary details. The Ld.AR further undertook that the assessee

- 3 - ITA No.1708/CHNY/2026 Baskar Sasikala would duly appear and file the requisite details as and when called for by the AO.

4.

The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the FAA & AO and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was submitted that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR fairly submitted that the assessee could not produce complete details before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to furnish the requisite particulars to substantiate the assessee’s claim. Considering the submissions of the Ld. AR and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to furnish the necessary details before the AO to substantiate her claim. Accordingly, the issues raised before us are restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues afresh in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to file all

- 4 - ITA No.1708/CHNY/2026 Baskar Sasikala requisite details, extend full cooperation to the Revenue authorities, and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15th May,2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (प�मावती एस) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (PADMAVATHY S) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 15th May, 2026 RSR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Chennai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.05.18 17:12:16 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →