M. RAMADASS,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO,, WARD-2,, THIRUCHENGODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1276/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2026AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity due to peculiar circumstances and lack of proper professional support from their counsel. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a lorry booking agent, failed to file a return of income. Upon reopening assessment, cash deposits of Rs. 15,70,000/- were treated as unexplained. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition as the assessee did not respond to notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits were unexplained and whether the assessee was denied natural justice due to lack of proper representation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: MS. PADMAVATHY.S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

For Respondent: Mr. Gautam S.Mukundan, JCIT

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, Appeal, Addl./JCIT(A)-6, Kolkata (in short "FAA") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 03.02.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.

2.

The assessee is an individual and working as lorry booking agent on commission basis. The A.O received information that there have been cash

ITA No.1276/Chny/2026 M.Ramadass :- 2 -:

deposits in the bank account of the assessee. Since the assessee did not file any return of income, the A.O reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In response to notice, the assessee filed the return of income 25.06.2018 admitting total income of Rs. 2,01,440/-. The A.O called on the assessee to furnish various details from time to time. After considering the submission of the assessee, the A.O treated the cash deposit into the bank account of the assessee at Rs.15,70,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act for the reason that the assessee failed to discharge proving the source for cash deposit. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the A.O since the assessee did not respond to the various notices issued. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

3.

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 also submitted that the assessee submitted certain details before the CIT(A) which have not been considered (page 27 of paper book). The ld. AR accordingly prayed for one more opportunity. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more 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

ITA No.1276/Chny/2026 M.Ramadass :- 3 -:

assessee is required to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with appellate proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

4.

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) लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य / Judicial Member सद�य लेखा लेखा चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 13th May, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S 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 NARESH DURGA Date: 2026.05.20 NARESH 12:05:28 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →