SANKARAN BALAJI,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, VELLORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea of unawareness and lack of proper professional support, granted one more opportunity in the interest of natural justice. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after calling for necessary details.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in business, did not file an income tax return. Upon receiving information about cash deposits, the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment. The assessee admitted a lower income, but the AO made additions, including for Specified Bank Notes (SBNs), assessing a higher total income. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the AO's order ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the appellate authority, especially when the previous ex-parte order was due to alleged lack of proper representation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: MS. PADMAVATHY.S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
आदेश / O R D E R
PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 r.w.s 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 14.01.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
ITA No.1214/Chny/2026 Sankaran Balaji :- 2 -:
The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of dealing in Mysore Sandal soap and allied products and did not file the return of income. The A.O received information that the assessee has deposited cash to the tune of Rs.58,33,715/-. Since the assessee did not file the return of income, the A.O reopened the assessment and the assessee in response filed the return of income admitting a total income of Rs. 5,93,880/-. The A.O did not accept the submissions of the assessee that the cash is sourced from sale of products, since the assessee did not file any supporting evidences. The A.O made an addition of Rs.18,22,500/- deposited by the assessee in specified bank notes (SBN). The A.O completed the assessment assessing the income at Rs.30,68,781/- after making other additions/disallowances. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Since the assessee did not respond to the notices, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the A.O ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee is not aware of the income tax proceedings and completely relied on his counsel for handling the tax matters. The Ld. AR further submitted that the counsel of the assessee did not provide proper professional support and therefore the assessee was not aware that the A.O has passed the assessment order. The ld. AR accordingly prayed for one more opportunity with an undertaking the assessee would represent the case properly. The ld. DR vehemently opposed the prayer of the Ld. AR stating that the assessee was already given an opportunity and has been consistently non cooperative even during the remanded proceedings. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more
ITA No.1214/Chny/2026 Sankaran Balaji :- 3 -:
opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice to represent the case properly by producing the required details. Accordingly, we remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) with the direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is required to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with appellate proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.
Further, we also levy a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand only) in the appeal since considerable time and efforts have been spent by the Exchequer and for the reason that the assessee being delinquent before the lower authorities. The same shall be paid by the assessee to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 13th day of May, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार िग#र) (पदमावती यस) (Manu Kumar Giri) (Padmavathy.S) �याियक सद�य �याियक सद�य / Judicial Member लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 13th May, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S
ITA No.1214/Chny/2026 Sankaran Balaji :- 4 -:
आदेश क� �ितिल�प 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
EJTADA Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA DURGA NARESH Date: 2026.06.01 NARESH 12:05:51 +05'30'
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026