KAMALAKANNAN ARUMUGAM,SAKTHIVINAYAGAPURAM MELUR, TUTICORIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TUTICORIN, TUTICORIN

The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have seen that the jurisdictional assessing officer erred in issuing notice under section 148 on 21.07.2022 when it was barred by limitation as it was issued after the surviving period as explained by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal in paragraphs 111 and 112 of the judgment. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have seen that the assessing officer erred in issuing order under section 148A (d) dated 21.07.2022 with the sanction of the PCIT whereas the sanction was to be obtained from the PCCIT as three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. 5. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have seen that the assessing officer erred in adding Rs. 15,06,080/- under the head capital gains without making a reference to the valuation officer as provided in section 50C (2). 6. The appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend or modify any or all the grounds at any time before or at the time of the hearing. ITA-3641/Chny/2026

The impugned penalty order is illegal, opposed to the facts, contrary to law, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice and therefore liable to be quashed.

The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in refusing to condone the delay when there was reasonable and sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly.

The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have seen that the jurisdictional assessing officer erred in issuing notice under section 148 on 21.07.2022 when it was barred by limitation as it was issued after the surviving period as explained by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal in paragraphs 111 and 112 of the judgment and therefore the entire reassessment proceedings and the consequent penalty proceedings are invalid in law.

The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have seen that the assessing officer erred in issuing order under section 148A (d) dated 21.07.2022 with the sanction of the PCIT whereas the sanction was to be obtained from the PCCIT as three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore the entire reassessment proceedings and the consequent penalty proceedings are invalid in law.

The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have seen that the assessing officer erred in levying penalty under section 270A in respect of the assessed income whereas it can be levied only in respect of the addition made by the assessing officer.

The appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend or modify any or all the grounds at any time before or at the time of the hearing.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 12.09.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 7,02,190/-, thereafter a revised return was also filed vide dated: 31.03.2022 declaring short term capital gains of Rs. 6,68,000/-. As per the information flagged in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by CBDT, the assessee has sold the immovable property during the year under consideration and on verification of the return of income, the assessee has not declared the income from capital gain. Therefore, the case was selected for reopening of the assessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued vide dated 10.06.2021. In response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee had not filed any return of income. Ultimately, the case of the assessee was assessed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act after making additions under the head short term capital gains amounting to Rs. 15, 06, 000/- and undisclosed business income amounting to Rs. 6, 92, 910/-.

The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the same was filed with a delay of 899 days. The assessee being further aggrieved preferred the present appeal before us. We have gone through the order of the AO, the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee along with grounds taken before us. It is observed that both the orders of the authorities below are either ex-parte or dismissed in limine hence, as such there is no matter before us which has been decided on substantive basis. The Tribunal being a final fact-finding authority, our endeavour is always to bring facts and law on record on substantive basis.

In view of the above (although the behaviour of the assessee is not appreciated by this bench) we deem it fit to give the assessee a final opportunity to come forward with relevant explanations and evidence to conclude the assessment on substantive basis. In the light of the above the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) of 899 days is condoned and the matter is restored back to the file of the AO with a direction to frame the assessment de novo after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard as per section 282 of the Act. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and cooperative enough this time in proceedings before the AO without seeking any adjournment and must come forward with relevant documents and plausible explanations without fail. In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with above directions.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 27th day of August 2026, in Chennai.