KUMARAVEL SIVARAJ,DINDIGUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DINDIGUL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1772/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to comply with notices and furnish evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 362 days, which was condoned by the tribunal. The assessee had not represented themselves before the Assessing Officer (AO) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)).

What were the issues?

Whether the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration due to the assessee's non-compliance and absence of representation before lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 13.05.2026Pronounced: 15.05.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी इंटूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद एवं �ी एस.एस. िव#ने% रिव, �ाियक सद के सम& । Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1772/Chny/2026 िनधा(रण वष(/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kumaravel Sivaraj, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No. 631-C-2, Ward -1, Vadaku thottam vayalur, Dindigul. Puspathur Post, Palani TK, Dindigul DT – 624 618. [PAN: BMIPS-2220-M] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-थ+/Respondent) अपीलाथ+ की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. Shrenik Chordia, CA ,-थ+ की ओर से/Respondent by Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 13.05.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 15.05.2026 : 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 16.01.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [herein after “CIT(A)] for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 362 days. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said

:-2-: ITA No: 1772/Chny/2026

delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we

find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really

prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, delay of 362

days condoned.

3.

The ld.AR, Mr, Shrenik Chordia, CA, submits that there was no

representation before the Assessing Officer [herein after ‘AO’] as well

as the ld.CIT(A). He submits that the assessee is ready to furnish all

evidences and comply the notices without fail. He prayed to remand

the matter to the file of the AO.

4.

The ld.DR, Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT, reported no objection.

5.

Having heard both the parties, we note that the AO made an

addition on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 [herein after “Act”] and further income from house

property vide his order dated 27.09.2021 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B

of the Act, wherein it is noted vide para no. 6 of the assessment order

that the AO made said two additions in the absence of assessee’s

response to the opportunities given. Further, before ld.CIT(A) no

compliance whatsoever made which is evident from para no.5 of the

impugned order. Therefore, considering the submissions of the ld.AR

and ld.DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand

:-3-: ITA No: 1772/Chny/2026

the matter to the file of the AO for a fresh consideration. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) and is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of his claim on merits. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced on 15th May, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 15.05.2026 JPV आदेश की ,ितिलिप अ4ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ+/Appellant, 2.,-थ+/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु5/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय ,ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड( फाईल/GF.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.05.19 16:18:57 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →