SEETHARAMAN VIJAYKUMARI,PUDUKKOTAI vs. ITO WARD 1, PUDUKOTTAI, PUDUKKOTTAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 693/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2026AY 2017-186 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order without considering the information furnished by the assessee. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal without verifying the submitted information. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based on cash deposits in the bank account. The assessee later filed a return, but the assessment was completed ex-parte, adding a significant amount as unexplained money.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings and the ex-parte assessment order were valid, and if the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without proper verification of evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139,Section 147,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 142(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI BENCHES “A” :: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

For Appellant: Mr. H.Yeshwanth Kumar – Advocate
For Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure – JCIT
Hearing: 16/04/2026Pronounced: 13/05/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCHES “A” :: CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.693/CHNY/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Seetharaman Vijaykumari, Vs Income Tax Officer, 785, Rajagopalapuram Housing Ward-1, Pudukottai. Unit Rajagopalapuram Post, Pudukkotai – 622003. PAN: AQDPV4182F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Mr. H.Yeshwanth Kumar – Advocate Revenue by Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure – JCIT Date of hearing 16/04/2026 Date of pronouncement 13/05/2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], Delhi dated 18.09.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2017-18.

2.

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal :

“1. For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case to the extent prejudicial to the interest of the appellant and is opposed to the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play 2. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s. 147 is without jurisdiction Ex-Parte dismissal of Appeal 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disposing off the appeal exparte. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant could have derived no benefit by not responding to the notices issued on the appellant. 5. For that the appellant had reasonable cause for not responding to the notices issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Legal Grounds 6. For that reopening is bad in law 7. For that the reassessment is bad in law. 8. For that the reassessment was completed without complying with the statutory requirements of law. 9. For that the order passed u/s. 148A(d) dated 13.03.2024 by Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Pudukkottai, being the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction and bad in law 10. For that the notice u/s. 148 dated 13.03.2024 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Pudukkottai, being the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction and bad in law. Addition of Rs 59,91,079/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A 11 For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding addition of Rs. 59,91,079 u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act as unexplained money of the appellant. 12. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69A are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. For that the amount credited in the bank account of the appellant cannot be treated as income of the appellant 14. For that the appellant has valid explanation for the cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant. 15. For that the provisions of Section 115BBE are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. For that the higher rate of tax u/s. 115BBE charged by the Assessing Officer is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case” 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual. No regular return of income under the provision of section 139 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18 was filed. However, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits in the bank account aggregating to rs.35,84,100/- in the bank account maintained with Indian Bank and also made cash withdrawals aggregating to Rs.59,16,000/- in the bank account maintained with Indian Bank during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income got escaped assessment from tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s.148 was issued on 13.03.2024 after duly complying with the procedure laid down u/s.148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the appellant filed return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 10.09.2024 declaring of taxable income of Rs.2,35,068/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the e-Assessment Unit of the Department (hereinafter called ‘AO’) vide order dated 17.01.2025 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act at a total income of Rs.62,16,579/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.59,91,079/- being credits in the saving account maintained with Indian Bank as the appellant failed to explain the source of the said deposits in the bank account.

4.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, appellant preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) contending that the Assessing Officer had failed to consider the information furnished during the course of assessment proceedings like Profit and Loss Account, Confirmations, documentary proof for actual income etc., However, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that the appellant had not submitted any documentary evidence for the sale of agricultural produce and also the gift received from her husband.

5.

Being aggrieved, the appellant in in appeal before us in the present appeal. It is contended that the ld.CIT(A) ought not have disposed the appeal ex-parte and also he submitted that the notice issued u/s.148 is bad in law for the reason that Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s.148 of the Act. He further submitted that the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer without considering the information filed by the appellant.

6.

On the other hand, ld.Sr.DR had vehemently opposed the above submissions.

7.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer passed ex-parte assessment order. It was contended before us that the assessment order was passed without considering the information furnished in response to notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. The appellant also filed the acknowledgment of evidence filed. Even before the ld.CIT(A), same contention was raised. However, the ld.CIT(A) merely dismissed the appeal by holding that the appellant had not furnished the requisite proof in support of the income received and gift received from the husband of the appellant. In our considered opinion, the ld.CIT(A) ought to have verified the information furnished during the course of assessment proceedings and ought to have set-aside the matter to the file of Assessing Officer. Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, we remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo assessment in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; �दनांक / Dated : 13th May, 2026 SGR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध,आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “ए” ब�च, 4. चे�नई/ DR, ITAT Chennai. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.

More judgments on Section 139

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →