MURUGESAN SENTHILKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NON CORP WARD 22(4), TAMBARAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1928/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 June 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to file supporting evidence, and the CIT(A) was instructed to adjudicate the issue on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 155 days, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer made an addition on account of cash deposits as unexplained investment. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition due to the assessee's non-compliance with hearing notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition without considering the assessee's submissions and evidence, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 15.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ 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. 1928/Chny/2026 िनधा'रण वष'/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Murugesan Senthil Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4/825, Malligai Street, Non Corporate Ward -22(4), Velachery Main Road, Chennai – 600 045. Medavakkam, Chennai – 600 100. [PAN: CWTPS-0135-D] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,थ*/Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. Srinivasan, CA +,थ* की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. S. Manoj Prakash, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 15.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2026 : 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 14.08.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.

2 ITA No. 1928/Chny/2026

2.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 155 days. The

assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said

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 155 days

condoned.

3.

At the outset, it is noted that the AO determined the income of the

assessee at Rs.30,43,663/-, inter alia, making addition on account of cash

deposits as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act vide his order dated

19.12.2019, wherein the assessee preferred an appeal before the

ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) issued four hearing notices on 03.08.2022,

17.08.2023, 21.08.2024, 20.05.2025, requesting the response from the

assessee. According to the ld.CIT(A), there was no response from the

assessee in respect of the above said four notices, which is evident from

page nos. 5 & 6 of the impugned order. The ld.CIT(A), in the absence of

any compliances confirmed the order of the AO in making addition u/s. 69

of the Act.

4.

The ld.AR, Shri. Srinivasan, CA, before us pleaded for another

opportunity as the assessee is ready to represent his case before the

3 ITA No. 1928/Chny/2026

ld.CIT(A) with all relevant documentary evidences and prayed to remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A).

5.

The ld.DR, Shri. S. Manoj Prakash, JCIT, reported no objection.

6.

Having heard both the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of issue and in the interest of justice, we deem to proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for a fresh consideration as discussed above, since there is no compliance by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A). The assessee is directed to file evidences, if any, in support of his claim. The ld.CIT(A) shall examine the same and adjudicate the issue on merits. Thus, order of the ld.CIT(A) is set aside and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30th June, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

4 ITA No. 1928/Chny/2026

Chennai, Dated: 30.06.2026 JPV आदेश की +ितिलिप अ3ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ*/Appellant, 2.+,थ*/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु4/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय +ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड' फाईल/GF.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.07.02 16:12:19 +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 →