SAI CARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. CORP. WARD 6(3) CHENNAI, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1864/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 August 2026AY 2012-136 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, and the assessee claimed no notice of hearing was served. The Tribunal, with no serious objection from the Revenue, decided to remand the matter.

What were the facts?

The assessee company filed its return of income, and the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 3,21,217/- based on a difference between income admitted during survey and offered to tax. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without proper service of notice, and if the matter should be remanded for de novo disposal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI BENCHES,

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Pronounced: 31.08.2026

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] dated 18.02.2026 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 1

2.

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal :

“1. The impugned order passed by the CIT-APPEALS, CHENNAI-18 u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act in DIN & Order No: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1086202792(1), is wrong, illegal and opposed to Law and Facts of the Case.

2.

Learned CIT-APPEALS failed to see that the assessment order has been passed without proper appreciation of the factual matrix, leading to an erroneous addition of Rs.3,21,217/- to the Returned Income.

3.

Learned CIT-APPEALS erred in not giving fair and adequate opportunity to the appellant in presenting their case.

4.

Learned CIT-APPEALS erred in not giving opportunity to the appellant comment on the letter alleged to have been given by the appellant in the survey proceedings and which was considered by the AO as above the ITR filed by the appellant.

5.

Learned CIT-APPEALS failed to appreciate that the assessing Officer (AO) erred in relying and according more weight to a letter given during the survey proceedings by the appellant regarding the income for the year than the Return of Income filed for the same year.

6.

AO erred in ignoring the income as per the Return of Income without first rejecting the books of account. AO erred in stating that the appellant did not give any evidence regarding the income declared in the return of income. AO failed to appreciate that the appellant submitted all the financial statements comprising Profit & Loss Account, Balance Sheet with schedules, Statutory Audit Report and Tax Audit Report with Schedules along with Statement of Computation of Income in support of the income declared in the Return of Income. AO grossly erred in ignoring all these documents filed under the Statute in preference to a letter filed during survey proceedings which was not based on any audited statements.

7.

The order of Assessment suffers from lack of application of mind by the AO since he considered Rs.1,56,94,570/- as the returned income as against Rs.26,80,479/- as returned by the appellant. While this mistake has been corrected in computing the tax, it goes to establish that the AO passed the assessment order without any application of mind to the return of income filed by the appellant.

8.

For these and other grounds that may be advanced at the time of hearing, it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to delete the addition of Rs.3,21,217/- made to the returned income and thus render justice.”

3.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual incorporated under the Companies Act. It is engaged in the business. The appellant-company filed return of income under the provisions of section 139 of the Act on 29.01.2014 disclosing total income of Rs.1,56,94,570/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ACIT, NCW-15(1), Chennai (hereinafter called ‘AO’) vide order dated 27.03.2015 passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs.1,60,15,787/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Ra.3,21,217/- being the amount of difference between business income admitted during the course of survey proceedings and offered to tax. It is the contention of the Assessing Officer that the appellant had disclosed business income of Rs.30,01,696/- during the course of survey proceedings, whereas the appellant had actually disclosed income of Rs.26,80,479/-. The difference amount of Rs.3,21,217/- was brought to tax as business income of the appellant for the assessment year under consideration.

4.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Learned CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The appellant raised grounds of appeal that the appellant could not cause appearance before the Learned CIT(A) as no notice of hearing was served upon the appellant. Therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Learned CIT(A) for de novo disposal of the appeal.

5.

On the other hand, the Learned Sr.DR has no serious objection to remand the matter to the file of Assessing Officer, we order accordingly.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st August, 2026. (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; िदनांक / Dated : 31st Aug, 2026 SGR, Sr.PS आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant.

1.

""यथ" / The Respondent.

2.3.

The CIT Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem. 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” ब"च, चे"नई / DR, ITAT Chennai. गाड" फ़ाइल / Guard File.

5.

GANGADHARA RAO SALEELA Date: 2026.09.01 16:25:12 +05'30'

6

More judgments on Section 139

All 3,629 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →